Nonetheless, most U.S. media reports contained nothing more than quotes from U.S. officials about what happened, conveyed uncritically and with no skepticism of their accuracy: The dead “fighters … were assembled for what American officials believe was a graduation ceremony and prelude to an imminent attack against American troops,” pronounced the New York Times. So, the official story goes, The Terrorists were that very moment “graduating” — receiving their Terrorist degrees — and about to attack U.S. troops when the U.S. killed them.

With that boilerplate set of claims in place, huge numbers of people today who have absolutely no idea who was killed are certain that they all deserved it. As my colleague Murtaza Hussain said of the 150 dead people: “We don’t know who they are, but luckily they were all bad.” For mindless authoritarians, the words “terrorist” and “militant” have no meaning other than: anyone who dies when my government drops bombs, or, at best, a “terrorist” is anyonemy government tells me is a terrorist. Watch how many people today are defending this strike by claiming “terrorists” and “militants” were killed using those definitions even though they have literally no idea who was killed.

Other than the higher-than-normal death toll, this mass killing is an incredibly common event under the presidency of the 2009 Nobel Peace laureate, who has so far bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries. As Nick Turse hasreported in The Intercept, Obama has aggressively expanded the stealth drone program and secret war in Africa.

This particular mass killing is unlikely to get much attention in the U.S. due to (1) the election-season obsession with horse-race analysis and pressing matters such as the size of Donald Trump’s hands; (2) widespread Democratic indifference to the killing of foreigners where there’s no partisan advantage to be had against the GOP from pretending to care; (3) the invisibility of places like Somalia and the implicit devaluing of lives there; and (4) the complete normalization of the model whereby the U.S. president kills whomever he wants, wherever he wants, without regard for any semblance of law, process, accountability, or evidence.

The lack of attention notwithstanding, there are several important points highlighted by yesterday’s bombing and the reaction to it:

1) The U.S. is not at war in Somalia. Congress has never declared war on Somalia, nor has it authorized the use of military force there. Morality and ethics to the side for the moment: What legal authority does Obama even possess to bomb this country? I assume we can all agree that presidents shouldn’t be permitted to just go around killing people they suspect are “bad”: they need some type of legal authority to do the killing.

Since 2001, the U.S. government has legally justified its we-bomb-wherever-we-want approach by pointing to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted by Congress in the wake of 9/11 to authorize the targeting of al Qaeda and “affiliated” forces. But al Shabaab did not exist in 2001 and had nothing to do with 9/11. Indeed, the group has not tried to attack the U.S. but instead, as the New York Times’ Charlie Savage noted in 2011, “is focused on a parochial insurgency in Somalia.” As a result, reported Savage, even “the [Obama] administration does not consider the United States to be at war with every member of the Shabaab.”

Instead, in the Obama administration’s view, specific senior members of al Shabaab can be treated as enemy combatants under the AUMF only if they adhere to al Qaeda’s ideology, are “integrated” into its command structure, and could conduct operations outside of Somalia. That’s why the U.S. government yesterday claimed that all the people it killed were about to launch attacks on U.S. soldiers: because, even under its own incredibly expansive view of the AUMF, it would be illegal to kill them merely on the ground that they were all members of al Shabaab, and the government thus needs a claim of “self-defense” to legally justify this.

But even under the “self-defense” theory that the U.S. government invoked, it is allowed — under its own policies promulgated in 2013 — to use lethal force away from an active war zone (e.g., Afghanistan) “only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.” Perhaps these Terrorists were about to imminently attack U.S. troops stationed in the region — immediately after the tassel on their graduation cap was turned at the “graduation ceremony,” they were going on the attack — but again, there is literally no evidence that any of that is true.

Given what’s at stake — namely, the conclusion that Obama’s killing of 150 people yesterday was illegal — shouldn’t we be demanding to see evidence that the assertions of his government are actually true? Were these really all al Shabaab fighters and terrorists who were killed? Were they really about to carry out some sort of imminent, dangerous attack on U.S. personnel? Why would anyone be content to blindly believe the self-serving assertions of the U.S. government on these questions without seeing evidence? If you are willing to make excuses for why you don’t want to see any evidence, why would you possibly think you know what happened here — who was killed and under what circumstances — if all you have are conclusory, evidence-free assertions from those who carried out the killings?

2) There are numerous compelling reasons demanding skepticism of U.S. government claims about who it kills in airstrikes. To begin with, the Obama administration has formally re-defined the term “militant” to mean: “all military-age males in a strike zone” unless “there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” In other words, the U.S. government presumptively regards all adult males it kills as “militants” unless evidence emerges that they were not. It’s an empty, manipulative term of propaganda and nothing else.

Beyond that, the U.S. government’s own documents prove that in the vast majority of cases — 9 out of 10 in fact — it is killing people other than its intended targets. Last April, the New York Timespublished an article under the headline “Drone Strikes Reveal Uncomfortable Truth: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die.” It quoted the scholar Micah Zenko saying, “Most individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names.”

Moreover, the U.S. government has repeatedly been caught lying about the identities of its bombings victims. As that April NYT article put it, “Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit.”

Given that clear record of deliberate deceit, why would any rational person blindly swallow evidence-free assertions from the U.S. government about who it is killing? To put it mildly, extreme skepticism is warranted (after being criticized for its stenography, the final New York Times story yesterday at least included this phrase about the Pentagon’s claims about who it killed: “There was no independent way to verify the claim”).

3) Why does the U.S. have troops stationed in this part of Africa? Remember, even the Obama administration says it is not at war with al Shabaab.

Consider how circular this entire rationale is: The U.S., like all countries, obviously has a legitimate interest in protecting its troops from attack. But why does it have troops there at all in need of protection? The answer: The troops are there to operate drone bases and attack people they regard as a threat to them. But if they weren’t there in the first place, these groups could not pose a threat to them.

In sum: We need U.S. troops in Africa to launch drone strikes at groups that are trying to attack U.S. troops in Africa. It’s the ultimate self-perpetuating circle of imperialism: We need to deploy troops to other countries in order to attack those who are trying to kill U.S. troops who are deployed there.

4) If you’re an American who has lived under the war on terror, it’s easy to forget how extreme this behavior is. Most countries on the planet don’t routinely run around dropping bombs and killing dozens of people in multiple other countries at once, let alone do so in countries where they’re not at war.

But for Americans, this is now all perfectly normalized. We just view our president as vested with the intrinsic, divine right, grounded in American exceptionalism, to deem whomever he wants “Bad Guys” and then — with no trial, no process, no accountability — order them killed. He’s the roving, Global Judge, Jury, and Executioner. And we see nothing disturbing or dangerous or even odd about that. We’ve been inculcated to view the world the way a 6-year-old watches cartoons: Bad Guys should be killed, and that’s the end of the story.

So yesterday the president killed roughly 150 people in a country where the U.S. is not at war. The Pentagon issued a five-sentence boilerplate statement declaring them all “terrorists.” And that’s pretty much the end of that. Within literally hours, virtually everyone was ready to forget about the whole thing and move on, content in the knowledge — even without a shred of evidence or information about the people killed — that their government and president did the right thing. Now that is a pacified public and malleable media.

Wait! Before you go on about your day, ask yourself: How likely is it that the story you just read would have been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn’t done it?
Consider what the world of media would look like without The Intercept. Who would hold party elites accountable to the values they proclaim to have? How many covert wars, miscarriages of justice, and dystopian technologies would remain hidden if our reporters weren’t on the beat?
The kind of reporting we do is essential to democracy, but it is not easy, cheap, or profitable. The Intercept is an independent nonprofit news outlet. We don’t have ads, so we depend on our members — 24,000 and counting — to help us hold the powerful to account. Joining is simple and doesn’t need to cost a lot: You can become a sustaining member for as little as $3 or $5 a month. That’s all it takes to support the journalism you rely on.Become a Member

“……Somali officials said later on Monday that five al-Shabab commanders had been killed in Saturday’s attack, including Mohamed Mire, the group’s Hiiraan governor, and Yusuf Ali Ugas, al-Shabab’s former Hiiraan chief…….

……..But Mire appeared on Thursday in the village of Buqa Qabe – in the same province the air strikes took place – to dismiss the claims…….”

Oh well. Chalk up another miss for the US on an intended target. I sure wish I knew the names of the 150 (or so) randomly bombed “victims”.

Mr Summers, maybe your good self and the rest of the World may become better informed about all the thousands of victims once the long awaited drone report is released. Everyone can then know perhaps exactly how many civilians have been killed so that human rights groups can measure the effectiveness of the program. Hope we do not have to wait as long as the CIA torture report though, and maybe with a bit of luck the drone report will be somewhat less retracted.

“……Mr Summers, maybe your good self and the rest of the World may become better informed about all the thousands of victims once the long awaited drone report is released…..”

One thing is for certain, one will never become better informed about the victims of the terrorist activities of al-Shabaab reading the Intercept. Of course, we don’t read the Intercept for that reason. We read it to learn why al-Shabaab are the victims in the GWOT.

The article makes some very important points but I confess to having mixed feelings, which I think might be shared by others. A report in the Guardian quoting local herders, and an Al-Shabaab spokesman. confirms that the victims were indeed militant recruits and there have been no published claims of civilian casualties. This seems to have been done with the full knowledge and support of the Somali government and, as other writers here have indicated, this was in compliance with US laws. Al-Shabaab are a particularly nasty bunch with Al Qaeda and ISIS-aligned factions and a very unpleasant CV. Recent achievements include retaking the port of Merka from African Union troops on Fri Feb 5th, killing 14 civilians in an attack on a hotel in Mogadishu on Feb 26, putting a suicide bomber on an Airbus on Feb 2, killing civilians in Mogadishu hotels in July 2015, murdered sleeping workers in a Kenyan town close to the Somali border in June 2015, and of course slaughtering 148 Kenyan students in April 2015.

@ David
i’ve heard this David, craigsummers, etc are a particularly nasty bunch, and when *MY* side gets in power, i can kill whoever i deem nasty, woohoo ! ! !
*rat-a-tat-tat-tat*
in fact, screw that, why wait until i get in power, if i’m justified to do it then, i’m justified to do it now ! ! !
*rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat*

sociopath or authoritarian ?
’cause it is usually either the socio/psychopaths and/or authoritarians who don’t consider, ‘hmm, i wonder if this shoe will pinch on the other foot…’

Everyone is who they are and no one in this world has the right to take someone’s life so it is wrong for the US government to kill they might have been al shabab but how does the government know that their weren’t families their as they just bombed where they thought the al shababs are it really is sad to see that these governments are only bombing Where Muslims are for they have done to your country nothing yet they think that it’s ok to go ahead and bomb Muslims we are not terrorists yes their might be some who are but that does not account for the the Muslim women and men who have done nothing wrong and yet are still being treated with disrespect everything is in the hands of GOD if someone commits a crime then by all means they should get their punishment no one has the right take the life of another human

The author of this article obviously never saw the movie Black Hawk Down and obviously is overlooking the rabid hatred of muslim extremist world wide toward the USA and its citizens. I can not say the dead individuals deserved to die but muslim extremist must understand that no one is eager to die because they are allegedly devoutly religious. And this is a killed or be killed world and that concept is never decided in a court of law until the killing is done.

See, I don’t have to question these things or demand evidence, because there are already people like you doing it for me. I can focus on more pressing concerns such as “What’s for dinner”. Also, not American (Canadian), so… he ain’t MY president. I got’s me a Trudeau.

We live in a world where certain lives are perceived to count more than others. How many innocent civilians did the Americans kill in Iraq in 2003, for oil? Tens of thousands. Why is the US government under George Bush not being held accountable for war crimes? Right, I forgot…..those innocent people killed are strangers in some far of land, with different values and customs, and they are probably all terrorists and supporters of terrorism anyway. Its not like they were just ordinary people trying to go about there everyday lives with kids and families etc. But oh well that’s the way the world goes….

Do crime do time! I really admire that people like Glenn stands against the country that committing crimes against humanity . Today, we need more activist than ever. The way our country operates under the banner of terrorism, it is outrageous, morally wrong and ethnically an acceptable.

It’s very simple: these are war crimes. That we do not enforce the law any more for the 1% is the real threat to the entire world.
And when China decides the assistant mayor of Chicago is “bad” and performs a pre-crime assassination on him using a drone, America may lament the new legal standard for “acts of war” they have foisted on the world.
Bombing another nation, even if it is done by some shithead with a joystick in a trailer in Virginia whose life is not at risk, is an act of war. Absent that definition, it’s a free-for-all that no longer meets the definition of the word “civilization”. If you are “for” these kinds of policies and actions, for whatever misguided “reasons”, then you stand against all of humanity.

Please refrain from making broad assertions about Americans thinking that this sort of behavior is normalized. While it may be normalized for, and even condoned by the aristocracy, it is not acceptable for large numbers of the working class in this country.

Well..it appears that killing on suspicion has got out of control and becoming systemic in US think tank. I am afraid that we are seeing the emergence of beginning of a new Nazi state. Last time, it was only one dictator who wrecked havoc. This time around whole political class in US is apparently sold to this idea of extra-judicial killing. Perhaps US has no moral basis to lecture North Korea and other countries with poor human rights record.
We need to wake up to the fact that there is no good in “Good”, basic human nature is evil and fight for survival.

This is exactly why posting at the Intercept is not only fun, but challenging. Below are two posts. Carolyn is a Russian-bot, and rrheard is a far left wing poster who just accepts the ridiculous claims by Carolyn without challenge. This is not just some aberration. This is the norm for the radical left which views the reemergence of the Russian military as a check on US imperialism. Despite Greenwald devoting significant space to the legality of drone strikes in Somalia, in his article titled ”Clapper Calls for Arming Ukrainian Forces: Who Would That Actually Empower?”, he never once mentions the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula or Russian military support for Ukrainian rebels. So US Law and International Law only means something when it is politically expedient. In fact, no one at the Intercept (30+ journalists) addresses Russian aggression as well (as far as I know).

Carolyn ? craigsummers
Mar. 9 2016, 6:53 p.m.
The Russians did not steal the Crimean Peninsula. The population of eastern Crimea VOTED to stay with Russia. The fascists in Ukraine, withi the help of the U.S. and NATO, staged a coup in that country. The Russian government was not the aggressor in that action. Stop spreading lies.

rrheard ? Carolyn
Mar. 9 2016, 8:10 p.m.
Carolyn
Wasting your time. Craig is living in some comic book morality fantasy world, where the Reds are bent on world domination are the saviors of the world, the U.S., and the only thing thwarting that agenda is our willingness to bomb things from afar. He’s a like cross between Sterling Hayden in Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove and Dick Cheney. Hell I’m not even sure if push came to shove he wouldn’t side with Israel against America, that’s what sort of confused loopy goof he is……….

“…….Brilliant stuff DocHollywood – just goes to show that Authoritarians like Craig Summers are prepared to defend anything that Governments do, even if that includes war crimes, and random drone bombings……”

Sorry, but this was no random bombing. The radical left has transitioned from tree huggers (in the 70s) to terrorist huggers today. If you read the article today by Glenn, you would think the US bombed a choir instead of a bunch of…..well terrorists. This is just one more instance where the radical left not only ignores the murders carried out by one of the most brutal terrorist organizations on earth, but creates 150 victims out of their misfortunes:

“…….With that boilerplate set of claims in place, huge numbers of people today who have absolutely no idea who was killed are certain that they all deserved it. As my colleague Murtaza Hussain said of the 150 dead people: “We don’t know who they are, but luckily they were all bad.” For mindless authoritarians, the words “terrorist” and “militant” have no meaning other than: anyone who dies when my government drops bombs, or, at best, a “terrorist” is anyone my government tells me is a terrorist. Watch how many people today are defending this strike by claiming “terrorists” and “militants” were killed using those definitions even though they have literally no idea who was killed……”

Well, cry me a river for the latest additions to martyrdom. Over the coming weeks, there will be approximately 10500 less virgins in heaven.

Craig, forgive me but I do not understand why you state that children and women, civillians could not lose their lives in drone attacks but quote “they will lose their virginity” Children and civillian women were raped by US marines in the Vietanam War Craig, and many instances are documented in the book Kill anything that moves by Nick Turse. However, in the case of drone attacks many civillians have already been killed, and many more may be killed too.

Don’t also don’t take comfort that I do not believe drone attacks are random. Drone attacks do kill civillians, and have done on numerous occasions, and the most despicable thing is that the civillians slaughtered, and burnt to ashes, have then described as killed terrorists. This is the exact same practice used in the Vietnam War when the military adopted corporate style targets and incentives for body count, and then killing civillians daily and calling them in as Vietcom. The US military command was complicit in the orders for this. It was a total overkill, and helped no doubt to over inflate the size of the enemy and scale of the war, and no doubt the investment in weapons, and arms required. Killing is not the answer to bring about peace, and unfortunately we live in a World where as well as terrorist groups, we have elite wealthy business opportunists, who shape foreign policy, and work with state terrorist Governments to profit from dirty wars. I am anti war and a far left socialist, but I do not hug or condone any terrorists, not terrorist groups or terrorist states.

If you take another pass at the article you’ll see that he’s not saying the 150 are saints. This article isn’t to exculpate them, it’s to challenge the public to actually pay attention to the impunity with which their government can kill people.

You’re part of the example of what the author is talking about, where you don’t question the information our government feeds you and take it at face value. You don’t know that everyone there deserved to die, and based on what we know about the collateral damage of drone strikes, it’s more than likely innocents were also killed. That’s the issue here. If any other country did this, there would be an outrage.

I understand the point of the article. Al-Shabaab has 7000-9000 fighters who are fighting to impose sharia law on the population in Somalia. They have carried out numerous terrorists attacks against targets primarily inside of Somalia, but they have also attacked outside of Somalia like the targeting of Kenyan students where 147 were murdered. They are a racist, Islamic terrorist organization.

Greenwald offers no solution. He offers no alternatives. He just says that we have no clue who we killed. But that is entirely false. The US cased this target out for weeks and worked with the African forces and the government of Somalia. Did we kill an innocent bystander? Possibly, but no military action is foolproof. Did Al-Shabaab target and murder 147 civilians in Kenya? Absolutely – so I have no qualms about killing as many of the terrorists as possible.

Every year the US executive through the State Department requests funds to Support AMISOM and the Somali Forces. Thoses requests called Budget Justification have a language very similar to the Somalia Stabilization Act of November 2013 that a commenter mentioned here, but was not enacted. The yearly requests from the State Department are more detailed than the language of the Act of November 2013. The requests state that the US Military will provide military assistance to AMISOM through logistics and training and the State Department clearly states that the US military will provide OPERATIONAL support to Somali Forces.

Every year the US Congress says yes to those requests and give funds to the State Department and DOD to finance those missions.

In US laws when the executive tells Congress what it would like to do and Congress says yes and gives funds to the executive to do it, then the executive has the authorization to do it. Budgets are laws.

Congress did not tell the executive to bomb Somalia. Congress authorizes the US executive every year to provide OPERATIONAL support to Somali Forces. Operational support in military terms means that US troops will have to be deployed to the hot areas and those troops will be targeted by the enemy of the Somali Forces. In that case, the main enemies are Al Shabab and a few pirates.

So, under US laws Obama is clearly authorized to have troops in Somalia and as the commander in chief he is authorized to use lethal force against enemies who are willing to attack US troops.

Congress never authorizes the US to bomb Uganda neither. The US executive never asks Congress authorization to start a war with Uganda. However, the executive asks Congress authorization to send troops in a combat area to support local armed forces against the LRA. Under US laws and international laws, the president can authorize the use of lethal force against members of the LRA if they are about to attack US troops in Uganda.

Even if we forget about international laws and UN resolutions, which clearly back the use of force against Al Shabab Obama, through the War Powers would still have the legal authority to bomb Al Shahab if indeed the fighters were about to attack US troops.

I am not sure whether Greenwald is just attempting to distort reality to rally a specific crowd or he honestly does not understand how US laws work.

NO, you are wrong!
No matter how much lega-lastix you attempt to spin, the USA have no lawful mandate to go bomb people in an entirely different country when the US is not at all threatened by them.
The USA Congress, and the U.N, are TOLD . . . .they do not decide!
Are you not familiar with Smedley Butler and his expose “War is a racket”?
The fact that those individuals, in Somalia, are resisting the economic and military take-over in their countries make them Heroes in all sense of the word, not “bad guys”…… and the USA a fucking parasitic, terroristic monster which is using their own lower mentality humanity as gun carrying drones and remotely operated killing machines in this diabolical drive for expanding their fucking obscene AngloZionist (as per The Saker) Psycho-Empire.
The “Pentagon” has hundreds of military bases all around the world. This can only be seen as an aggressive tactic for corporate annexation and escalation of military conflict with resultant overall chaos and conflagration.

“No matter how much lega-lastix you attempt to spin, the USA have no lawful mandate to go bomb people in an entirely different country when the US is not at all threatened by them.”

First, this is not lega-lastix. The United States has an elected Congress that passes laws. The United States is also a member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Both entities, Congress and United Nations have the right issue decisions that are binding. Both of them issued decisions against Al Shabab and both have asked governments to support military forces against Al Shabab.

When nations disregard UN resolutions (Israel), they are in full violations of international laws. If you are living under your own legal framework, then you have to come up with your own legal standards to make your point. But in terms of current US laws and international laws, the US executive is fully authorized to have troops in Somalia and to bomb Al Shabab fighters if those troops are threatened.

2) “The fact that those individuals, in Somalia, are resisting the economic and military take-over in their countries make them Heroes in all sense of the word, not “bad guys”

This is not a legal matter, but I would really like to know what kinds of moral standards you use to conclude that a group of fighters who bomb their own citizens struggling in markets to find food, students in their classrooms in foreign countries or shoppers with their families in malls are “Heroes”.

3)”The “Pentagon” has hundreds of military bases all around the world. This can only be seen as an aggressive tactic for corporate annexation and escalation of military conflict with resultant overall chaos and conflagration.”

This is your political view. It has nothing to do with the legal argument at hand. It is also a distorted view since citizens or Germany, Spain, U.K, Turkey, and many others have access to strong democratic institutions that can compel US troops to leave their territory. Ecuador is a perfect example.

Killing is not the answer to bring about peace, and only creates a never ending cycle of more hatred, killing and violence borne from fear and from those seeking revenge. The solution for World peace and harmony is for every individual on this planet, regardless of their beliefs, religion, or political affiliation, to work to overcome selfishness. Greed must be transformed into generosity. Ignorance has to be turned into wisdom. We must all be mindful of how we create and use wealth and technology, and to ensure that it, and our lifestyles bring happiness, without causing harm to others. We need to be aware that following a path of materialism will never bring sustainable happiness. Learning that true prosperity is self reliance, self dignity, contentment, generosity, and mindfulness. Everyone needs to value a peaceful life in which one relates harmoniously to all sentient beings and the environment. Knowing how to live simply, having time to enjoy oneself and the community. Learning tolerance and understanding of others cultures, religions, and political beliefs. The wars and killing are symptoms of a World obsessed with money, and capitalist greed, and selfishness. We can only bring about World peace and harmony if each and everyone one of us changes.

A few weeks ago when that small hands ‘great’ wannabe dictator, Donald Trump was going on about ‘taking out’ the families of ‘potential’ terrorist, everyone was ‘shocked’ and couldn’t believe that anyone could go so low.

The son of Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike just a week or two after his dad. With him a few friends. A 16 year old boy. His sin? Being a family member of Anwar al-Awlaki. A ‘potential’ problem for the Obama administration in the future. So yes, lets take him out.

But hey, Obama is the cool guy. He is fighting the ‘good’ fight. It’s totally different if we, the neoliberal scum we are, is doing this short of thing. You must just look at the bigger picture through our hypocritical shit filled eyes.

Funny thing, really. Everyone acting so shocked. You know, it’s not like a democrat, say, by the name of Barack Obama, would ever do something like that, would he?

Anwar al-Awlaki’s son was killed just a few weeks after him by drone strike. A 16 year old boy that could ‘potentially’ be a problem in the future. Going by how the Obama administration handle things. But hey, Obama is the cool guy, folks. We will pretend that we despise that short of thing if it is someone else that is doing it, but we are the ‘good’ guys. Us neoliberal fuckers.

Hi Glenn, it’s been a long time. I was a regular reader and commenter back in UT and Salon days. It’s been great watching your career, and I want to thank you for your tremendous courage in regards to the Snowden saga. You’ve been a very lonely voice continuing to speak truth to power, despite the increasingly Orwellian actions of the US.

So, Nobel Peace laureate Barack Obama extinguishes 150 nameless souls halfway across the world, and very few Americans are going to even bat an eye. They were “terrorists”, after all…at least we think they might have been. We’re going to check up on that real soon. You know, confirming that they were “bad” and deserved to be “horrifically murdered”.

When Bush committed these types of acts, liberals were rightfully morally outraged.

Now that the Democrats have held the Executive Office for 8 years, the moral outrage is nowhere to be found. I sense apathy. Complacency. Disappointment? Sure…but no outrage. What if this was Bush committing this act?

A silent coup occurred in the fall of 2001. 9/11 was either part of that coup, or the decisive reaction to 9/11 was the coup. Either way, the men-behind-the-curtains took the reins in September of 2001, and they haven’t handed them back in regards to the operational oversight of the Global War on Terror. 9/11 is still actively used to justify these renegade acts, no matter how heinous. It ironically “trumps” all other reasoning.

This open-ended AUMF, the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, The Military Commissions Act…all of this legislation enacted by Bush was meant to reinforce this silent coup.

Just ask yourself this question.

In regards to the Global War on Terror, and the horrific actions being committed by the US….do you think it really matters who the President is?

This global hunting of ISIS and other “enemy combatants” is going to continue indefinitely – whether Hillary, Bernie, Trump or Mickey Mouse is elected President. Does anyone disagree? If so, then what has become of our republic?

What are we supposed to do Glenn? The representative system is irreparably broken. Our leaders – or their nameless puppeteers – are murdering human souls based on….hunches. We have no political voice to stop it. The democratic system is completely distorted right now.

Now, Trump is wildly popular while regularly being compared to Hitler by the M$M, the NSA is admitting to the use of military (read armed) drones in the skies over the US, in violation of Posse Comitatus, and again…no one is batting an eye? Are you fucking kidding me?

What can Americans do in 2016 to slow this march toward total tyranny?

That’s the true face of deplorable fascists – they’ll quote even a Nazzi if it “endorses” their tyranny and sub-human conscience. Hear these angels speak against Nazzi’s otherwise. Worthless hypocrites!

I appreciate your attempt to enlighten, I find you presumptuous as a youth however, ‘But for Americans, this is now all perfectly normalized. We just view our president as vested with the intrinsic, divine right, grounded in American exceptionalism, to deem whomever he wants “Bad Guys” and then — with no trial, no process, no accountability — order them killed. He’s the roving, Global Judge, Jury, and Executioner. And we see nothing disturbing or dangerous or even odd about that. We’ve been inculcated to view the world the way a 6-year-old watches cartoons: Bad Guys should be killed, and that’s the end of the story….nothing about this is in any way acceptable to me, I am simply trapped, living within the boundaries of the u.s….however embarrassing this may be for myself and all who recognize people – as people…

I would love to hear an argument — any argument — in defense of our numerous, under-discussed military actions in Africa. These remote, generally poor lands are as far from us as one can get. The partisans and nations there have no missiles that could reach us. It seems as though our civilian Administration deploys men there largely to keep contractors funded and busy. That there are “enemies” of the US in north central Africa & the Mahgreb I have no doubt. That we are somehow thwarting them, or managing them so as to better the interests of our nation…………. ah, no. Not too damned likely. It looks like a great make-work program for our security state, run by important shadowy guys who see the national interest as a fluid concept that one genuflects towards only when absolutely necessary.

As Glenn points out in this article, no branch of our federal government even bothers to bring an argument to the electorate about our African adventures. At all. We scatter ‘advisers’ and ordinance across the Sahel and southern Sahara and it never makes the news, except in this bizarre, abbreviated and sanitized way.

It’s the job of the MSM,obviously,but they don’t want US to know,just like every other crime in the 21st century.
I’m still waiting for proof who did 9-11,and who funded it.You’d think it would be a recurring theme,wouldn’t you?Of course they say OBL did the dirty deed,wo tangible proof,but that still leaves the funding under the rock of forgetfullness.
They are running out of rocks.

When are educated American’s going stop acting like the bombing of a new country is a foreign policy change, opposed to part of the same continuous foreign policy (General Wesley Clark on planned wars in ME: youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw).

The average American has been propagandized to the point of xenophobia. No matter how bad or illogical an excuse is conjured up for killing people or an act of war, many Americans just accept it because they don’t really care why these people were killed or bombed. Since they have been conditioned to hate those people the reason is inconsequential to them, they just accept it and think they are just better off now.

Unfortunately our actions do have consequences in the form of blow-back. The people making our foreign policy realize this, yet try to censure any critical examination of the consequences of our foreign actions, thus attempting to divorce cause from affect (http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/a-new-blacklist-for-quotexcuse-makersquot/.). For example ISIS wouldn’t exist if we didn’t try to overthrow the Syrian government. As a consequence our actions ISIS was created, empowered and attacked civilians in Paris, San Bernardino, and on an airplane in Egypt.

Yet by masking the continuity of this Neocon regime change foreign policy, we are handicapped in our knowledge making it easier for this policy to continue, leaving us all worst off.

I am Somali and completely support the us campaign against the group. Alshabab kills my people every single day. It sad because I don’t see any one writing about the death of over a hundred peacekeepers last month in the hands of this group. Or the sucide bombings that take place almost every week. I felt anger reading your article because I have a sense that you have no idea about thr situation in Somalia. Because noby feels bad for people that rape a 13 year old and then publically stone her to death or thr people that decapitate innocent civilians only because they are different in thinking. By the way the us is helping Somalia because the government Requested that. And It is highly unlikely that any civilian was hurt even the Somali media and the terrorist media didn’t mention colateral damage.

Then let’s have some evidence and proof that the 150 people killed were actually members of Alshabab instead of vague assurances. Let’s have an open debate on bombing Somalia. The Congress is supposed to debate and vote upon whether to wage war, not one person unilaterally deciding who should die. And to those saying that Alshabab did terrible things like torture and mass murder and beheadings–how would you punish the Americans who did these things in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would you punish brutal regimes like our good friends in Saudi Arabia who behead people all the time?

Why don’t you go to Somalia and collect the evidence yourself. I am sure the Shabab will welcome you with open hands. Don’t get me wrong i am not a fun of US foreign policy and i understand were you are coming from but what is more humane, killing 150 terrorists with 0 to minimum civilian casualty or letting the 150 terrorists (most of them willing to become suicide bombers) live so that they could kill far higher number of certainly innocent peolpe. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enRVsBDz1oo

There was nothing caught there at all by the Hollywood boy. I was being sarcastic. The US has killed numerous al-Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS leaders – and this hasn’t happened by just blind luck which is the suggestion by Greenwald when he quoted the New York Times story:

“…….Beyond that, the U.S. government’s own documents prove that in the vast majority of cases — 9 out of 10 in fact — it is killing people other than its intended targets. …..”

Greenwald left out the other statistics and quotes in the same article which undermine this extremely deceptive statement.

Brilliant stuff DocHollywood – just goes to show that Authoritarians like Craig Summers are prepared to defend anything that Governments do, even if that includes war crimes, and random drone bombings. You have caught him out royally proving that he is even willing to lie and spout utter bullshit to deny and defend what he has already stated he knows. Liars need good memories, and unfortunately for Craig his is failing him. Lol

“……..With that boilerplate set of claims in place, huge numbers of people today who have absolutely no idea who was killed are certain that they all deserved it. As my colleague Murtaza Hussain said of the 150 dead people: “We don’t know who they are, but luckily they were all bad.” For mindless authoritarians, the words “terrorist” and “militant” have no meaning other than: anyone who dies when my government drops bombs, or, at best, a “terrorist” is anyone my government tells me is a terrorist…….”

I feel fairly comfortable saying they deserved to be killed (BBC).

“…….A spokesman for al-Shabab, Sheikh Abdiasis Abu Musab, confirmed to Reuters news agency that the US had bombed an area controlled by the militants [read: terrorist training camp] However, the US had exaggerated the number of casualties, he said. “We never gather 100 fighters [terrorists] in one spot for security reasons. We know the sky is full of planes,” the spokesman added…….The camp had been under surveillance for some time, Capt Davis said……..A Somali official said their intelligence service cooperated with the US ahead of the air strikes, the Associated Press news agency reports……” my inserted comments in brackets

The same terrorist organization murdered 147 students at a University in Kenya on April 2, 2015.

“………The massacre that killed 147 people and wounded scores of others at a Kenyan university lasted for hours Thursday before the terror was over…….The Somalia-based Al-Shabaab militant group claimed responsibility for the assault……..”

Furthermore, random drone strikes targeting any military aged male in the past have successfully killed leaders of al-Shabaab (BBC):

The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Craig Summers is a lawless authoritarian. He endorses torture, doesn’t have any use for the 4th Amendment, and also prefers not to see presidents constrained by the Separation of Powers mandated by the Constitution.

“……Craig Summers is a lawless authoritarian. He endorses torture, doesn’t have any use for the 4th Amendment, and also prefers not to see presidents constrained by the Separation of Powers mandated by the Constitution……”

You are hilarious, Mona. Harold Koh explained the legal case for the Obama Administration (New York Times):

“……”The U.S. is in armed conflict with al-Qaida as well as the Taliban and associated forces in response to the horrific acts of 9/11,” he told the crowd of lawyers, “and may use force consistent with its right to self-defense under international law.”…….

……..Koh explained that Congress made the conflict official when it passed a law known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001…….

……..He said the government uses advanced technologies to ensure “that civilian casualties are minimized in carrying out such operations.” And he said whether a given person becomes a target depends on various considerations, “including those related to the imminence of the threat, the sovereignty of the other states involved, and the willingness and ability of those states to suppress the threat the target poses.”……

……..Koh argued that a state engaged in armed conflict or legitimate self defense (such as the U.S., according to Obama administration reasoning) is not required to provide targets with legal process before using lethal force……”

You already knew all of this Mona. If you don’t like it take them to court, but it is the legal reasoning for the GWOT. I’m fine with it. Terrorizing the terrorist is one important use of drones.

Since 2001, the U.S. government has legally justified its we-bomb-wherever-we-want approach by pointing to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted by Congress in the wake of 9/11 to authorize the targeting of al Qaeda and “affiliated” forces. But al Shabaab did not exist in 2001 and had nothing to do with 9/11. Indeed, the group has not tried to attack the U.S. but instead, as the New York Times’ Charlie Savage noted in 2011, “is focused on a parochial insurgency in Somalia.” As a result, reported Savage, even “the [Obama] administration does not consider the United States to be at war with every member of the Shabaab.”

Instead, in the Obama administration’s view, specific senior members of al Shabaab can be treated as enemy combatants under the AUMF only if they adhere to al Qaeda’s ideology, are “integrated” into its command structure, and could conduct operations outside of Somalia. That’s why the U.S. government yesterday claimed that all the people it killed were about to launch attacks on U.S. soldiers: because, even under its own incredibly expansive view of the AUMF, it would be illegal to kill them merely on the ground that they were all members of al Shabaab, and the government thus needs a claim of “self-defense” to legally justify this.

So, again Craig, why do you ignore the Constitution of the United States regarding the Separation of Powers?

I find it interesting that you have completely avoided responding directly to two of my post – and you accuse me of whataboutery?

“……Instead, in the Obama administration’s view, specific senior members of al Shabaab can be treated as enemy combatants under the AUMF only if they adhere to al Qaeda’s ideology, are “integrated” into its command structure, and could conduct operations outside of Somalia……”

In 2012, al Shabaab leaderGodane pledged his support to al-Qaeda (Wikipedia):

“……On February 9, 2012, Mukhtar Abu al-Zubair ‘Godane’ announced in a fifteen-minute video message that Al-Shabaab would be joining the militant Islamist organization al-Qaeda, under the leadership of Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al-Zubair stated, “On behalf of the soldiers and the commanders in al-Shabaab, we pledge allegiance to you. So lead us to the path of jihad and martyrdom that was drawn by our imam, the martyr Osama.”[8] Al-Zawahiri approved and welcomed Al-Shabaab as al-Qaeda’s Somalia-based affiliate in a 15-minute video response, stating “Today, I have glad tidings for the Muslim Ummah that will please the believers and disturb the disbelievers, which is the joining of the Shabaab al-Mujahideen Movement in Somalia to Qaeda al-Jihad, to support the jihadi unity against the Zio-Crusader campaign and their assistants amongst the treacherous agent rulers.”…..”

All those conditions mentioned by Greenwald were met. The US is at war with an affiliate of al-Qaeda in Somalia which IS a threat to attack the US. In addition, al-Shabaab has conducted operations outside of Somalia murdering 147 students in Kenya. Al-Shabaab is an international terrorist organization.

In my honest opinion, we have every duty to attack the Islamic terrorist organization, al-Shabaab. They have targeted and murdered numerous civilians. Civilian deaths seem to mean something to you when it is politically expedient Mona. We inadvertently kill civilians and that’s bad. Shabaab targets and kills civilians – just let them be. That is one primary difference between radical leftists and liberals as I have pointed out numerous times in the past.

My Craig, what highly selective wiki quoting you have going there. There’s a reason the Obama administration isn’t claiming authorization per the AUMF.

As the wiki entry goes on to say, Al-Shabaab East Africa revolted against the internationalist Godane faction (that bombed the Kenyan mall) and has insisted on remaining a Somalian organization fighting local powers. Goldan’e people fled Al-Shabaab several years ago, I believe for Yemen.

Al-Shabaab is a Somalian entity fighting for control of Somalia. So, and again, why do you ignore the Constitution of the United States regarding the Separation of Powers?

According to Wikipedia, Godane won out in an internal struggle for the direction of the organization:

“…….. By 2013, the internal rifts within Al-Shabaab erupted into all-out warfare between Godane’s faction and those of other leaders in the organization. In late June, four senior Shabaab commanders were executed under the orders of Godane. One of these commanders was Ibrahim al-Afghani, who had complained about the leadership style of Godane in a letter to Ayman al-Zawahiri. Sixteen others were arrested, and Aweys fled.[176] He was later taken into custody in Mogadishu by Somali government forces.[177] On 12 September, Omar Hammami, who had left the group due to significant disagreements with Godane, was killed by Al-Shabaab forces. The Westgate shopping mall shooting in September was said by Simon Tisdall to be a reflection of the power struggle within the insurgent group, with Godane’s hardline global jihadi faction seeking to exert its authority.[178]…..”

Indeed they did.

“……why do you ignore the Constitution of the United States regarding the Separation of Powers?….”

I don’t and to prove that point, the US killed up to 150 terrorists associated with the al-Shabaab International terrorist organization and affiliate of al-Qaeda. The ACLU can challenge the decision to bomb al-Shabaab in court. In the meantime, there are 150 less terrorists to target and murder innocent civilians.

But the administration does not consider the United States to be at war with every member of the Shabab, officials said. Rather, the government decided that Mr. Warsame and a handful of other individual Shabab leaders could be made targets or detained because they were integrated with Al Qaeda or its Yemen branch and were said to be looking beyond the internal Somali conflict.

So Craig, were these 150 dead people integrated with Al Qaeda for purposes beyond Somalia?

Craig, asserting it unfortunately does not make it so: “the US killed 150 terrorists”.
Um no, they didn’t, they said themselves they have no idea whatsoever whom they killed. And they’ve said themselves their pre-crime assassination methods have a 6% accuracy rate. Hopefully you do not espouse the death penalty using methods that are 6% accurate as to the recipient of the penalty? If you do, well then I wish you a hearty “Sieg Heil!”

“Why would anyone have any sympathy for the killing of 150 of them. . .”

I think the point of the article is that it is unclear who the “them” actually are, given no independent reporting on the ground.

The point not addressed in the article is that Al Shabaab is not really much different in behavior and style from the Saudis, who are using cluster bombs to kill civilians and Shia Islamists in Yemen, with U.S. assistance and no sanctions, because they are “our allies.” They too want to spread their brand of intolerant Wahhabi Sunni Islam (into Yemen), wiping out all the heretics and establishing dictatorial control.

However, Al Shabaab represents a piracy threat to oil tankers and other shipping moving through the Gulf of Aden on their way to the Red Sea, such as Saudi oil tankers, so they are ‘the enemy’ of the moment. Perhaps later they’ll be ‘our allies’ in some stupid proxy war against, I don’t know, Chinese interests in Africa? With a Saudi or Israeli or Egyptian cutout for the weapons supply train, as was done with U.S. support for the “moderate” ISIS in Syria recently.

Come on, who can’t see it? Al Shabaab declared “moderate,” reformed with new leadership, our new ally in the War on Terror, sworn to stop the piracy in exchange for weapons and money, out to overthrow a pro-Chinese local government? Sounds like a Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney project, doesn’t it?

This is why we should stop viewing countries in the Middle East as “allies” – not the Saudis, not Israel, not Egypt, not Turkey, no more than we call Iran or Syria “allies” – they are all nothing more than problematic “acquaintances,” at best.

“…….The point not addressed in the article is that Al Shabaab is not really much different in behavior and style from the Saudis, who are using cluster bombs to kill civilians and Shia Islamists in Yemen, with U.S. assistance and no sanctions, because they are “our allies.”….”

You are really hung up on the Saudis. You supported the Russian bombing in Syria in which hundreds of people have been killed and thousands of refugees created. The Russians have bombed hospitals. It really makes little sense for you to complain about Saudi Arabia bombing the Houthis.

“{……However, Al Shabaab represents a piracy threat to oil tankers and other shipping moving through the Gulf of Aden on their way to the Red Sea, such as Saudi oil tankers, so they are ‘the enemy’ of the moment,,,,”

Yea, I hear that the Shabaab Navy is a threat to the US Fifth fleet. Don’t be fucking ridiculous, OK?

“…….Come on, who can’t see it? Al Shabaab declared “moderate,” reformed with new leadership, our new ally in the War on Terror, sworn to stop the piracy in exchange for weapons and money, out to overthrow a pro-Chinese local government? Sounds like a Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney project, doesn’t it?….”

Sounds like you are making up a bunch of Bullshit.

“…..This is why we should stop viewing countries in the Middle East as “allies” – not the Saudis, not Israel, not Egypt, not Turkey, no more than we call Iran or Syria “allies” – they are all nothing more than problematic “acquaintances,” at best……..”

You are entitled to your opinion. Support what you want, but you are doomed to be completely wrong when it comes to US foreign policy.

Just because a nation has internal strife doesnt give the USA the right to label the side it dislikes as terrorists who deserve to die, and the side it favors as “moderate rebels” who we arm, train and pay to terrorize the people of Syria. The Kenya attack was another false flag just like 9/11, Paris, Boston, etc. The US government is evil, end of story.

“The U.S. is not at war in Somalia. Congress has never declared war on Somalia….What legal authority does Obama even possess to bomb this country”

Every year the State Department asks Congress funds to provide military assistance and operational support to AMISOM and the Somali forces. Every year Congress says yes and the president signs it into law.
When the executive tells Congress what it wants to do and Congress says yes and gives the executive funds to do it, then the executive has the legal authorization to do it.

Operational support in armed conflicts mean troops will more likely be deployed to the hot area and they will be targeted by the enemy of the armed forces they are supporting. So, although it is not clear whether US troops were really being targeted in that specific situation the bombing of those fighters was in accordance with US laws, International laws and many UN resolutions that strongly support AMISOM if indeed Al Shabab was about to attack AMISOM or US forces.

I am not sure what legal argument Greenwald is attempting to present. Even if there was no UN resolution against Al Shabab, even if Congress never authorized military support for AMISOM or Somali forces, the US president could use the War Powers Act to justify that bombing. The president could simply say that US troops who were in a training mission with Somali forces were about to be attacked by Al Shabab. The bombing would still be legal under US and international laws.

Really the reason nobody cares is because the attacks are being carried out by drones, and thus no Americans are dying in the process. Even at the height of the Iraq War, the moral outrage on the left was never about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were dying, only about the 5000 or so Americans who died, who unlike the Iraqis, basically asked to be there by signing up to serve in the military in the first place.

If these were indeed terrorists plotting an attack against American soil, then perhaps these strikes were justified…but everyone is innocent until proven guilty, even terrorists. And even then, they should have captured these terrorists, put them on trial, and locked them away some where other than Guantanamo Bay…not just killed them without due process. For that, we would at least need a declaration of war, but you can’t issue one of those against a non-state actor.

Regardless, the left won’t care, because Obama can kill whomever he wants so long as they get their government-subsidized health care, abortions on demand, and gay marriage.

And this sounds about right, and another reason I will not vote to put the Clinton’s back in the White House:

The current level of hostility in US-Russian relations was caused in part by Washington’s contemptuous treatment of Moscow’s security concerns in the aftermath of the cold war, a former US defence secretary has said.

William Perry, who was defence secretary in Bill Clinton’s administration from 1994 to 1997, . . .
[snip]
“Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when Nato started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia. At that time we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that Nato could be a friend rather than an enemy … but they were very uncomfortable about having Nato right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”

Perry said the decision reflected a contemptuous attitude among US officials towards the troubled former superpower.

“It wasn’t that we listened to their argument and said he don’t agree with that argument,” he said. “Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point … the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path.”

Of course, those countries that were formerly subjugated by the USSR rightly sought protection from Russia. Who can blame them for that? All you have to do is look at Ukraine to understand that those countries were right. Russia represented a tremendous threat even as they continue to wage a war in Ukraine after they stole the Crimea Peninsula.

The Russians did not steal the Crimean Peninsula. The population of eastern Crimea VOTED to stay with Russia. The fascists in Ukraine, withi the help of the U.S. and NATO, staged a coup in that country. The Russian government was not the aggressor in that action. Stop spreading lies.

Wasting your time. Craig is living in some comic book morality fantasy world, where the Reds are bent on world domination are the saviors of the world, the U.S., and the only thing thwarting that agenda is our willingness to bomb things from afar. He’s a like cross between Sterling Hayden in Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove and Dick Cheney. Hell I’m not even sure if push came to shove he wouldn’t side with Israel against America, that’s what sort of confused loopy goof he is.

100 to 1 says he’s in the same age cohort as Cheney. A lot of them are literally fucking nuts and totally brainwashed about America’s actual history and agenda. Same type of ahistorical super patriots that think America broke Germany’s back in WWII instead of Russia and learned US history from Time Life coffee table books.

I’m hopeful the world will be a better place when some members of that generation shuffle of this mortal coil. Assuming we make it that long.

I hope you take the time to read Michael Hayden’s book and blow the living crap out of it in your columns for months here.

Nobody is begging for it worse than that guy. If there is anybody more full of shit I don’t know who it is–Kissinger? Cheney? Hillary Clinton? Michael Hayden is a full fledged “all-star” in the BS Leagues.

Didn’t you give that guy all he could handle one night in a one-on-one debate a couple of years back?

American journalists are so ignorant at times. East Africa nations are allies in the war against terror. Does the writer have proof that the trainees in that camp would not attack Americans or her allies?

Sigh. You are a sorry excuse for a journalist. You are making accusations and trying to influence people without a shred of proof. Was that an article or a biased rant? Don’t you have a tree to hug somewhere?

The writer is completely ignorant of what he writes about. Al-Shabab has pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. in 9/11 (or are the conspiracy theorists right that it wasn’t al-Qaeda behind the 9/11 attacks?). Al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in East Africa and killed many Americans. Alshabab killed Americans in the Westgate mall attack. So to write that U.S. is not at war with Alshabab is shocking!

…American TV presenters would express shock if there was a retaliatory attack.

Imagine, if, somehow, some Somalis managed to kill some US soldiers in continental America, CNN, the entire media would be going ballistic about the attack…how did it happen?…how did they get in the country? What were their motives, what should we do to defend ourselves?…should we bomb Somalia? Clearly it hasn’t been bombed enough…perhaps send regular ground troops? Is Iran behind this, should we bomb Iran?

It’s a hermetically sealed view of the world where military victory leads to status quo empire…and should there be a failure…it leads to status quo empire….until enough people that don’t profit from empire, including the African Americans in prison…and the Africans being bombed in Africa…wise up.

By the way, didn’t “special forces” used to be called “death squads”?

A death squad is an armed group that conducts extrajudicial killings or forced disappearances of persons for the purposes of political repression, genocide, or revolutionary terror. These killings are often conducted in ways meant to ensure the secrecy of the killers’ identities. Death squads may have the support of domestic or foreign governments (see state terrorism).

The Nato coalition in Afghanistan has been using an undisclosed “black” unit of special forces, Task Force 373, to hunt down targets for death or detention without trial. Details of more than 2,000 senior figures from the Taliban and al-Qaida are held on a “kill or capture” list, known as Jpel, the joint prioritised effects list.

In many cases, the unit has set out to seize a target for internment, but in others it has simply killed them without attempting to capture. The logs reveal that TF 373 has also killed civilian men, women and children and even Afghan police officers who have strayed into its path.

But before that, there was the now famous “Program Phoenix”

Assassination Nation

The US Phoenix Program was a secret, large scale counter terrorist effort in Vietnam. Developed in 1967 by the CIA, the Phoenix Program, called Phung Hoang by the Vietnamese, aimed a concerted effort to “neutralize” the Vietcong Infrastructure (VCI) consisting of South Vietnamese civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese or Viet Cong soldiers. The euphemism “neutralize” meant to kill or detain indefinitely. Then CIA Director William Colby, while insisting in 1971 Congressional hearings that “the Phoenix program is not a program of assassination,” nonetheless conceded that Phoenix operations killed over 20,000 people between 1967 and 1972. [11]

I was trying to find how the decision to, shower Somalia with American goodness was made…did Obama flip a coin? Six sided dice? Ouija board? Why did Somalis win the drone sweepstakes, why do they deserve all the democracy and human rights and prosperity that only the US military can bestow….

….then I came across this:

Guantanamo Bay is often portrayed as exceptional, a piece of hell located off American shores and outside American law. A place where humans could notoriously be tortured and abused because the rules usually constraining such violence were purposefully suspended.

Certainly, there are many aspects of “justice” at Guantanamo that lie far beyond the pale: most egregiously, the prolonged indefinite detention of hundreds of men held without charge, the vast majority of whom were innocent. For many, Guantanamo Bay epitomizes all the problems with a “war on terror” that places some people outside the law, supposedly to save the rest of us from them.

However, Guantanamo Bay is not as exceptional as we might like to imagine. Physical and psychological abuse are not restricted to spaces expelled from the normal American legal system. American prison brutality did not begin at Guantanamo, and will not end with its long-promised closure.

On the contrary – in September 2015, Human Rights Watch warned that President Barack Obama’s plan to transfer Guantanamo detainees to super-maximum security prisons within the U.S. could actually worsen their conditions of detention. “Supermax conditions often include prolonged isolation that can lead to prisoners experiencing depression, despair, anxiety, rage, claustrophobia, hallucinations, problems with impulse control, and/or an impaired ability to think, concentrate, or remember,” according to a letter to Obama from HRW’s Executive Director Kenneth Roth. “Inmates have described life in a supermax as akin to living in a tomb.”

Rather than just asking questions and providing no answers, I’d like to see an alternative scenario proposed. If these people WEREN’T al Shabaab militants, who were they? And why would the executive spend millions of dollars to see them bombed? See, in journalism simply bringing up a lack of information isn’t enough, you have to PROVIDE information as well. Until this is done, I’m inclined to believe that this was a strike againt al Shabaab militants. With the lack of any competing scenarios, it is the only view that really makes sense. Sometimes a story really is as simple as it appears.

Well, here’s a scenario Bo, hope you enjoy it. It was the first space camp in Somalia, training for zero gravity and building stamina when their training was cut short by a big caboom, courtesy of Lockheed Martin and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. Would you like additional scenarios while your government acts against any conventions and rules of war?

You go, Bo James. Go on believing the party line. It makes so much ‘sense.’
Judge, jury and executioner. Fuck everything else. Fuck reason. What the fuck is reason? Us cunts from the US is above reason. We want your oil and resources, so why the fuck should we use reason.

Glenn *has* provided information: The government’s claims about who it kills in drone strikes have been repeatedly shown to be false, so we shouldn’t believe them. It’s not necessary for Glenn to say who the victims were for us to doubt the official story.

On another note, I have this bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying….

We’re in our 8th year of Obama’s administration expanding on the very same actions both his campaign and you criticize the Bush administration for. It happens again and again, regardless of who the two parties put in place. Notice how all the acts that enable this pass with bipartisan support, yet often with public outcry. Letting anyone convince you these are just the act of an individual, even a President, ignores the participation of both political parties.

On this: “3) Why does the U.S. have troops stationed in this part of Africa? Remember, even the Obama administration says it is not at war with al Shabaab.”

According to the Washington Post: “There are more than 20,000 A.U. [African Union] troops in Somalia, drawn primarily from Uganda, Kenya, Burundi and Ethiopia. Their primary funder is the United States, which foots a large part of the bill for training and equipping the international force.”

That doesn’t explain why we are backing this military effort, but notice it was “US Navy Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman” who gave the press briefing – and if you look at Somalia’s position, i.e. the Gulf of Aden to the north, through which all the Arab Gulf oil transits on tankers through the Red Sea and the Suez canal to Europe, and consider the history of piracy in the region, then it becomes pretty obvious that the Navy is there to protect the oil shipping route, and the U.S. support for African Union troops in Somalia is part of that ongoing plan.

Probably the drone attack, which included manned aircraft – was launched from US Navy ships in the Gulf of Aden. The overall rationale remains the same as its ever been – protecting the oil shipping routes, but neither the State Department nor the Pentagon nor the White House want to state that so plainly, so they call it ‘counter-terrorism’ – but it has little if anything to do with terrorism, everything to do with global economics.

This doesn’t get discussed in the corporate press or television, no background allowed. Even if such military action is necessary to protect the shipping routes, the rationale, even if it apparently makes some kind of sense, must be hidden from the American people, because the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs are our ‘allies’ and they bank their oil money with Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and Blackstone, and are the top buyer of weapons from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup, Raytheon, etc. and so we must spend billions to protect them – they just don’t want it to be a subject of discussion.

The result is that most Americans are woefully ignorant of the fact that the U.S. spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year to protect global oil shipping routes on behalf of client states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Kuwait, states which curiously enough play central roles in exporting their radical Wahhabi Islamic ideology all over the world, where it is adopted by groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria or al-Shabaab in Somalia or ISIS in Syria or Al Qaeda in Pakistan or the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The notion that this is all a big waste of American taxpayer dollars – that supporting such ‘allies’ in the Middle East is actually counter-productive, in the long run (just like the current proposed $1 billion increase in Israeli military aid) – is not a topic that the American establishment in Washington wants to see discussed.

The notion of ‘capitalism’ is just to vague to explain the situation. After all, the ‘socialists’ like Hugo Chavez and his pal Colonel Gaddafi were just as greedy for the oil money as the ‘capitalists’ were; the absolute control of the only energy source was a source of power and social control for them too. Did they treat their people better? Maybe a little, but not much different, really.

The same goes for the Soviet communists, who treated their satellite nations in Central Asia and Eastern Europe the same way the old European monarchist powers treated their colonial territories in Africa and the New Work and Asia, the same way the U.S. has treated the Middle East populations for decades – puppet dictators, client states, authoritarian repression, torture and murder.

No, the specific solution to this particular issue is a global transition to energy sources that are not under the control of any one region, government, or cartel. The sun shines most everywhere, the wind blows just about everywhere, and with appropriate technology anyone can have their own power plant in their backyard with no need to rely on the Saudis or the Russians or the Venezuelans – and, bonus, no need to breathe filthy air or drink contaminated water. No need to spend billions protecting foreign oilfields, either. And global warming slows down a bit, too.

So what’s the best method to build such a system? Communism, centrally controlled production? That was always an incompetent corrupt authoritarian disaster. Wall Street capitalism? Those greedy monkeys see more profits in controlling and measuring out fossil fuels than they do in putting renewable energy technology in everyone’s hands.

How about locally controlled Silicon Valley-style innovation and manufacturing, instead? How about partnerships with countries with few fossil fuel reserves, i.e. no incentive to keep the fossil fuel control system going, countries like China and Germany and Japan and India, regardless of whether they call themselves capitalist or socialist or whatever?

Libya,before its destruction was the richest nation in Africa,Khaddafi reinvested the oil wealth,and statistics in Venezuela bear out the marked improvement of the poor in that country from socialism.
Better than what exists everywhere else in Africa and most of Central and South America.

Republicans suppress the vote…Democrats “are unprepared” for the vote. It’s not like this voting stuff was a scheduled thing, or that they know in advance how many are eligible, or that Sanders has boosted enthusiasm or anything like that!!!

Officials attributed some of the ballot shortages to increased turnout. Polls around the state are scheduled to close at 9 p.m. EST. Although one precinct in Plainfield Township reported that Democratic ballots ran out due to a miscommunication with the Kent County clerk’s office causing them to be mistakenly delivered to another location.

According to Think Progress, voters at a polling location in Flint had to wait for an hour or when Democratic primary ballots ran out, or choose to be notified at home when more ballots were available.

Gee, cynicism and apathy may not be enough, let’s hold votes on a week day, when most people need to be at work or school, or better yet spring break when students are away, let’s make them wait in line for hours, that should dispense with the old and the infirm, then let’s tell them we are out of ballots…

….How explicit do you want the Democratic party to be, “Yes everybody, it’s fixed, we’re corrupt…can we all now please coronate Hillary?”

“Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, have long been targets of discriminatory anti-terrorism policies, and Sanders’ campaign has responded to these concerns better than anyone else. He even promoted his campaign platform of equality and dignity in Arabic,” said Amry. “We are also seeing, perhaps, a response to the Sanders’ campaign’s attack of corporate America. Michigan’s blue-collar Arab Americans are suffering economic challenges too, not just white blue-collar Americans.”

Those economic challenges were some of the reasons Muslim voters in Michigan said they were pulling the lever for Sanders. Shiab Mussad, a 22-year-old recent college graduate from Dearborn, told the Detroit Free Press that he was impressed with Sanders’ passion about making college more affordable. He added that Sanders’ faith was not under consideration when he was deciding his vote.

“He has a good foreign policy record,” said Mussad. “I support him because of his policies, not because of … his personal religion.”

I still can’t understand why it is still called ‘the Defence Department’, because I can’t remember the last time it was used in that capacity. Neither does rest of the world does see it as such begging the question: ‘is the U.S. it’s own worst enemy?’

During WWII, i.e. when there was a plausible “defense” mission, it was called the “war” department. Then after the war, when the US faced no credible military threat from anyone (remember: the USSR had yet to develop nuclear weapons and was completely devastated by the war), the name was changed to the “defense” department. (We spell “defense” differently here in the States.)

i agree with the liberal position of most of your readers. when governments ask us for help fighting forces attempting to impose Islamism, we must stay out of it. or when fascists are committing genocide, let’s just mind our own business.

On the question of individual liberty, gender equality, freedom of expression, civil rights, humanism, secular government, and a right to life, liberty, and due process under the law, we should remain “neutral.” I mean, the only good things that ever came from liberalism are art, literature, music, science, reason, and education.

As for the universality of human rights or the notion that all people regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or nationality, possess certain inalienable rights? it’s nonsense. We liberals gave up on these principles years ago.

As liberals we also no longer believe in equality of the sexes, or standing up for women, homosexuals, or minorities. Well, unless it’s in our own country. Because women’s rights, equal rights, or civil rights are only for westerners. And if others espouse tyranny, theocracy, or genocide, so what? how does that prevent me from enjoying my iPhone and the military technology that created it? after all, we exist outside the political economy and it’s not our business to apply normative western standards of justice.

And why is everyone always going on about freedom of expression and freedom of religion? We as liberals now support silencing those who express opinions and beliefs, or de-platforming them, if they disagree with us or if we don’t like their nationality, ethnic background, or religion. Israelis for example, should never be allowed to speak publicly and shouted down accordingly. I mean, unless they agree with us.

As to military aggression, violence, murder or ethnic cleansing, we support that behavior as long as it’s carried out by the proper third world actor. otherwise, it’s simply western imperialism or colonialism. And who can’t but sympathize with the notion that violence and terror against innocents are legitimate political weapons?

Sure, 1 million Jews and 10+ million Christians have been driven out and ethnically cleansed from most of the middle east who had lived there since well before the creation of Islam. But the only justice that matters is for the Palestinians. It’s really black and white.

We used to believe in the rule of law and that all men are innocent until proven guilty. Now we support and sympathize with those who administer medieval justice, torture, and execute people in the public square without a fair trial. Sometimes you have to crack and egg to make a liberal omelet.

Phooey on the old enlightenment principles, which value, above all, the importance of the individual and his or her quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Groups are now more important than individuals, and identity politics and political correctness more valuable to the human experience.

As liberals we also no longer believe in equality of the sexes, or standing up for women, homosexuals, or minorities. Well, unless it’s in our own country. Because women’s rights, equal rights, or civil rights are only for westerners.

If you think everyone who more or less is a Greenwald fan would self-identify as a “liberal” you’d be wrong. Some are leftists, others are libertarian.

Moreover, a disingenuous concern for women’s rights, or gay rights, underpins a good deal of the West’s militaristic, colonialist war-mongering and support for the apartheid state of Israel.

Westerners do not properly use bullets and bombs to bring Muslim countries and cultures “up to speed” on our Enlightenment values. Indeed, we should be reflecting a good deal more on whether those values support the atrocities and inequities we have imposed all over the world.

Women in Muslim countries can do feminism themselves without being told how to do it, or bombed into doing it, by white Westerners.

You will not question the liberal establishment. You will not ever ask Mr. Obama why. If he says the drone killed terrorists then the drone killed terrorists. The media would never take sides and purposefully neglect to ask any questions.
How dare you make inquiries into the government’s business. You should be ashamed of yourself. Where do u get off acting like you’re a citizen in a country with freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Rest assured that none of those killed in the drone strike were black. If they were then you could ask questions and make sure everything was done properly and legally. Because black lives matter and Obama is black so of course he wouldn’t condone the drone strike death of any black person. ..come on.

It’s definitely true that people, especially the media, get excited with Obama, the Clintons and Bushes and rally behind the leader. War provides an almost sexual release and gives meaning to their otherwise boring lives. However, that’s not where the energy for a movement is going to come from.

Being a soldier is a way to make a living in the US, as well as getting citizenship.

This is why it’s important not to just show that war is immoral, but to provide an alternative. We need an exit strategy for our soldiers. On a pragmatic level, it’s not enough to make overtures to peace and justice.

Michelle Alexander is a compelling speaker on ending mass incarceration. Unbelievable statistics about how many millions of prisoners would be released, how man prison guards would be out of a job, how many prisons would close, and all their support industries in the towns where they are located that would be affected….

If America returned to pre-Clinton incarceration levels.

Michelle Alexander: “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”

But what to do with all those soldiers that have nowhere to invade? All those prisoners and prison guards looking for work…what to do?…what to do about it???

The case for infrastructure spending – now

Suppose your house needs a new roof, and the interest rate on the loan you require to get the work done is extraordinarily low — but expected to rise in the future. In addition, construction work has been slow in the area, meaning labor and other costs are at bargain rates for the time being. Should you get the work done now or wait until later when it might cost quite a bit more?

That’s the situation the U.S. now faces over infrastructure spending. The nation has considerable needs for bolstering its infrastructure, interest rates remain ultralow but are expected to rise in the future, and the costs for labor and raw materials are below normal due to the slow recovery from the Great Recession but are likely to increase over time.

JLocke – I posted this yesterday so sorry for the re-post, but as your missing Bernito, and in need of some US Government/fascist satire I hope that it will serve to satisfy until the master of satire Benito returns :

Hey guys, let’s get things straight here !- everyone that the US Government murders by drone attacks, missiles, or bombs is either a terrorist, or a person who would have gone on to commit a future act of terrorism. Even if they were just civilians gathered together at a wedding, or funeral they could still have posed an imminent threat to the United States.!They may even have had weapons of mass destruction !Besides, their deaths are valuable, since they can be labelled by the US propaganda media as terrorists, to help justify, self perpetuate and even escalate the war on terror. Expanding the killing fields, and creating more people who wish to seek revenge for the murder of their innocent family members, including women and children is great for business. Killing civilians is also better than risking the possibility of them becoming future war refugees and migrants, as this would drain precious US and it’s allies in Europe’s resources which could otherwise be used for future spending on military contractors, and the arms industry. The US Government has assured everyone of its commitment to be precise in its targeting, so this should be all the assurance and comfort needed for civilians of the World everywhere, and if one day a relative or friend is accidentally killed then you should accept that they must have been a secret terrorist or you should just forgive and forget the loss as it was obviously unintentional “collateral damage”. Why should the US Government have to provide names of its drone kill victims or any further information to the public, or Human Rights groups ,as such transparency would lead to the threat of being held accountable, and even, God forbid, a risk of war crime accusations arising – right ??????

Not much in the American press about the real US strategy in Somalia (as opposed to the piles of articles about “fighting terrorism”) but Benito pointed to two obvious goals, the oil reserves and of course the shipping lanes offshore:

Somalia may pay 90% of oil revenue to explorer under draft deal

NAIROBI (Bloomberg) — Soma Oil & Gas Holdings Ltd., chaired by former U.K. Conservative Party leader Michael Howard, has proposed a deal with the Somali government that may grant it as much as 90% of the country’s prospective oil revenue.

A draft production-sharing agreement, obtained by Bloomberg from an official close to the negotiations, sets the state’s share of revenue on the first 25,000 bopd at 10% if found at a depth of greater than 1,000 m and when oil costs less than $70 a barrel. If output exceeds 150,000 bbl, Somalia’s take rises to 30%. Crude for delivery in June fell 0.4 percent to $57.30/bbl at 4:45 p.m. in London on Thursday.

Any deal with Somalia will include terms that are “fair and balanced” and reflect those signed in other high-risk, offshore oil and gas jurisdictions, Chief Executive Officer Robert Sheppard said in an e-mailed response to questions on May 27. “The proposals being discussed are in line with current industry standards.”

Somalia is trying to attract investors to help rebuild its economy after African Union-backed government forces regained control of parts of its central and southern region seized by al-Shabaab in an insurgency that began in 2006. The Horn of Africa nation is scheduled to hold a general election in 2016, the first since 1967, according to the Heritage Institute, a Mogadishu-based research organization.

Oil and gas output may start by 2020 after exploration work showed the potential for “huge” offshore deposits, former Petroleum Minister Da’ud Mohamed Omar said in February.

You are right to draw attention to the real US strategy in Somalia. I was aware about the Soma Oil and Gas Holdings limited proposed deal and that the company is chaired by the former Conservative Party leader, Michael Howard. Cage Uk also drew attention to this when David Cameron made the announcement that British troops were going to be sent to Somalia. The Cage website also published reports on mass rendition being carried out in Somalia and about Gitmo style secret prison camps there. The War on Terror continues to be great business and very profitable for the elite rulers of Governments – their Corporations including oil companies, arms manufacturers, private contractors have all made bumper profits as reported by The Intercept. It’s all really about Imperialism, and greed – killing, and expanding the killing fields will never ring about peace. Whilst money and Corporate lobbying control and dictate political and foreign policy decisions the killing will never stop. Western Governments these days are elected by the public but work to fulfill the agenda of a few very powerful elite people, and their powerful Global Corporations and Financial institutions. Unfortunately democracy is dead and the only hope perhaps is for new crowd funded political parties to rise that are funded differently.

I guess this has two elements. The first one is the formal…”there has been no declaration of war”. Times change, some constitutional elements are written. Some are unwritten. America has gotten old enough to move into the unwritten stage. Government after American government has observed the practice of going to war without a formal declaration. Every nation has their own particular paperwork to fill out when going to war. That the American war dance has changed, is a transitory, bureaucratic, non-transferable, foot-note. It’s a change that has been forced upon a country that has full time military operations all over the world around the clock. The decision to be such a world occupation force was made long ago, and now it would be as unreasonable for Obama to declare war before attacking Somalia, as it would be for the Allies to declare war on Normandy on the eve of D-Day. Once you have made the decision to conduct a world war….bases, fighting on many continents…it would be impractical to “declare war” on a strike by strike basis, or even on a campaign by campaign basis.

Maybe the more effective argument, and grounded in human reality is the point that the US is without democratic input, picking and choosing allies and enemies in foreign civil wars, and framing it as:

I think the American public, given the right media attention, might be able to grasp that. Try turning the tables …Try to get them to consider the shoe on the other foot:”hey, Al Qaeda didn’t attack America, it just attacked some New Yorkers…the rest of you stay out of it!!!”

There’s of course all the implications of the most powerful countries bringing the end to the era of national sovereignty…America picking sides in Africa, Russia protecting groups in Ukraine…someday China may decide to liberate Chinatown in New York….

And while we wait for that, we are forced to listen to John Kerry lecture the Syrians on human rights. If the past, current, and perhaps future US presidents find it legal to commit war crimes….why should tiny Syria, in a desperate civil war, be held to a different standard. If a president Trump finds it necessary to waterboard…If superpower president Obama finds it necessary to lob bombs 5000 miles away at a poor African country….what humanity can we expect from Syria’s Assad?

See, there’s three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn’t fuck the assholes, you know what you’d get? You’d get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!

Fear, ignorance, detachment and war profiteering have become the cornerstones of a foreign policy designed to guarantee no shortage of opposing elements that seem to add credence to those philosophic, perceptual and identity errors of judgment used to justify the existence of same.

This much IS known about the results of the Drone Program for “targeted” assassinations with no Due Process: Multiple Wedding Parties and Meetings of Village Elders have been eradicated with surgical accuracy but neither accountability nor moral authority.

In view of these indisputable facts, the solution is unlikely to arise from those responsible for the present course but rather, another type of change (already supported by the current and past administrations): That of Regime.

I skimmed the original article title when writing exams. I read the articles today and found little to no media awareness on this relative to the time that’s gone by and the magnitude of the actions. I hate to say it, but its becoming more and more standardized. Drone strikes can kill 100s of people and since drones are new tech it was sensationalized to allow shady policy to fly under the noses of blind US citizens. Now look at its intended purpose.

I remember that in the popular call of duty video games, drone strikes are used as an active point mechanism players would pursue to kill their enemies faster. This video game was played by millions of kids.

Now any male of militant age is paying the consequences. It’s even more frightening to note continuing lack of transparency the US gov’t provides. And especially the lack of knowledge and blind following people have, like it’s as simple as a video game.

Do not send troops in the Middle East or Africa… to fight terrorist groups and those terrorist groups would leave us alone. Have you noticed that countries that never send troops overseas to fight those groups have never faced terrorist attacks? Argentina, and Indonesia are ones of the perfect examples.

Pray that future generations figure out a way to solve a problem that we failed to solve. The internet can give us some hope for now. Young people are supporting Bernie in droves… hopefully that is a trend.

Young people are supporting Bernie in droves… hopefully that is a trend.

Thanks to my fellow, young Michiganders we pulled it off for Bernie last night. Indeed, young blacks caused the African-American vote in Michigan to give Bernie 30% — almost all of them young. Turn out in MI was unprecedented — many polling stations ran out of Democratic ballots. That’s because 18-24 turned out in numbers as great as over 65.

Most wonderfully, every fucking poll was wrong — Hillary was supposed to be leading by double digits. LOLOLOL

@ Mona. Grasping at straws, perhaps the answer lies behind door number #3 UEA (Unitary Executive Authority)? I think this is the legal theory Obama used in Libya … which evidently ‘trumped’ (pun>?) Congress’ express prohibition for involvement in Libya.
*also, not sure I have any confidence what-so-ever in Congress exercising its Art. I constitutional authority: Congress is unable to even agree on a SCOTUS (too busy w/ the horse race) … much less on matters of lethal force used around the world?
#whatwouldtheBerndo?

@ Craig (the un-colon); if, as you say*, the US has the moral [and legal] authority to unilaterally kill alleged ‘terrorists’ in, say, Somalia does the US have that same authority in … Russia, China, N. Korea, Pakistan, France, England, Israel (notice, these are known nuclear powers)? Or anywhere else, willy-nilly, around the world?
[*”Finally, the US rightly targeted the Kenyan terrorist organization responsible for brutal attacks on civilian targets:”]
#whatwouldTrumpdo?

“……[email protected] Craig (the un-colon); if, as you say*, the US has the moral [and legal] authority to unilaterally kill alleged ‘terrorists’ in, say, Somalia does the US have that same authority in … Russia, China, N. Korea, Pakistan, France, England, Israel (notice, these are known nuclear powers)? Or anywhere else, willy-nilly, around the world?……”

(more like the un-colonoscopy)

The US strategy under President Obama is to increasing provide assistance to countries in the fight against terrorists like Shish-Kabob (Somalia) – and despite Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons, the US has been bombing terrorists in that country for several years. The US attack on the terrorist training facility in Somalia was a cooperative effort (probably not unilateral). Obviously, the US cannot waltz into China, Russia, North Korea etc. and start bombing terrorists. Usually these countries work with the US in the WOT (except N. Korea). China and Russia already crack down on their own populations to fight terrorism (Ughirs, Chechens, for example). France, Germany, England (the EU) cooperate with US intelligence.

Who really knows what Trump would do? Initially he would probably just sustain the policies of the Obama Administration before formulating his own policies. I suspect he would aggressively carry out the WOT.

Ah (more like the un-colonoscopy) … I have no cure for one sick of un-colonoscopy, Craig! *i am merely a gazelle wandering in the desert of love … but I have heard an ‘un-examined’ colon is not worth having?

>”The US strategy under President Obama is to increasing provide assistance to countries in the fight against terrorists like Shish-Kabob (Somalia) –”

Well, see, there’s the problem right there, Craig! Obama is killing the wrong terrorists Shish-Kabobs. The terrorists killed were Al-Shabaab. *I think it’s important to at least know the name of the terrorist organization, if not the identities, of people we are at war with, don’t you?

>”Obviously, the US cannot waltz into China, Russia, North Korea etc. and start bombing terrorists.”

Obviously… now snatch the pebble from my hand.

ps.*Trump!? … at least with Trump the GWOT would become “Trump’s GWOT” (if there is any money in it)!

There is a new bill in there the president of USA is authorisied to declare war without any approval of congress. The president could declare war at once. This bill was passed from congress about the the time president G.W. Bush leaved office. I was afraid that Obama would use this new law and hope he would not used this law. But this law is justifing all war actions of the US-president. I was alerted of this law on a government watch web site. I cant remember the name and number of this bill.

“Please peeps, ignore the troll truth&Freedom It takes over the threads, posting voluminous insults, name-calling and inanity. It’s been kicked out of here before under different monikers. To engage is to help it do it’s disruptive thing.” Mona

As If I care about whether you or others even read my comments. I call you an idiot because you are an idiot. You insult Craig because you believe he is an “authoritarian” and a “Zionist”. In your case, it is not a belief, it is not an insult. It is a fact: you are an idiot:

“You’re evading the question: The government is not claiming the AUMF authorizes this. So, what does?” Mona

Even if there was no such thing as AUMF. The government is authorized to use force against anybody that is about attack its troops. That is called self defense. Whether or not they were about to attack US troops is not clear, but the point is that you are idiot to even ask that question.

“Why do we have troops in Somalia in a position to be attacked? What is the authority for this?”

Really? This why I call you a idiot.

This is the authority: United States Congress S.1745 November 20, 2013

“The United States should:

“continue to support African-led regional efforts to improve security and stability in Somalia, including through the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM);”

” carry out all diplomatic, economic, intelligence, MILITARY, and development activities in Somalia within the context of a comprehensive strategy coordinated through an interagency process.”

By any means feel free to ignore my comments. I do not care. This is a public comment section and I just demonstrate again that you are an idiot.

The US forces are there for only one reason and one reason only. Nothing to do with improving the the security and stabilisation of Somalia. If you believe that, one can call you an idiot, but insults helps nobody.

The US government is in service of the Plutocracy. Resources and the free flow of resources is all they care for. Human rights is not anywhere in their list of priorities.

You can believe whatever you want. You can even believe they are there to play star wars. Greenwald and his stupid followers ask the LEGAL ground that justify their presence in Somalia. Congress provided that legal ground.

The best thing for you to do now is to ignore Congress text S.1745 on November, 2013 that authorized the president to provide military assistance to Somalia and keep repeating Greenwald’s distorted argument.

So all you need is congressional approval to send your troops to other countries now is it? That satisfies your sense of legality? Believe it or not the rest of the world would rather your American troops stay at home thanks. We all know what “stability” means coming from the US government, even if you do not.

Actually, he asked for evidence that proves the 150 were terrorists who were going to harm U. S. troops. Who says they were? Was there an undercover agent on the ground? Were they able to capture video of each of the people conspiring to do so? Do they have audio? Were papers or electronic communications intercepted that point directly to the 150 and their plan to attack US troops? Or did someone with a grudge against whoever these people were just get them killed as an act of revenge? Were their activities interfering with business? How many killed were civilians? If we have troops there to keep the peace, why is a group of 150 terrorists able to go through an entire training course to the point of graduation? And if we have troops there to fight, why the drones? What are these troops doing?

“FY 2014 funds will be used to continue voluntary support to AMISOM,
including training and advisory services…to provide OPERATIONAL
support to Somali security forces”

This was the law enacted by the United States Congress and signed by the president of the United States:

“Provided further, That of the funds available for obligation under this heading in this Act and in prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs, up to $194,000,000 may be used to pay assessed expenses of international peacekeeping activities in Somalia.”

“The FY 2015 Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request of $115 million will support programming related to Somalia. FY 2015 funds will be used to continue voluntary
support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), including training…Accordingly, PKO funds will also be used to… provide logistical, operational…support to Somali military forces”

This is the bill enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president of the United States:

“Provided further, That funds available for obligation under this
heading in this Act may be used to pay assessed expenses of
international peacekeeping activities in Somalia”

Every year the State Department uses the same language of text s1745. It tells the US Congress it needs money to provide logistical and OPERATIONAL support to AMISOM and Somali Forces. Every year Congress says yes, provides all the funds necessary and the president signs it into law.

Not only does Congress give the executive the authority to support AMISOM and Somali forces in their operations. It also gives the executive the funds it requests for the mission.

If you tell Congress you want to provide operational military support to an armed group and you want money for it and Congress say yes and gives you money for it, that means Congress is authorizing you to provide operational military support for that group.

The only idiot here is you, and your repetitive use of the word is ” idiot ” is boring and establishes that you have a limited vocabulary and this is a trait of poorly educated person with limited brain power. Unfortunately you are also the worst type of idiot as like Craig Summers you are an authoritarian, and as narrow minded as the right wing, war criminal, nut jobs that now rule the United States.

You: “You have a limited vocabulary and this is a trait of poorly educated person…war criminal…”

The question asked by Mona has been properly answered. However, due to your high level of mental retardation which precludes your ability to examine critically the matter in hand, you can only provide an answer that strongly supports the argument that you are a fool. As a favor, I would not use the term idiot to describe you. Based on your answer the word numskull fits you well.

You know what you and those who authorized the president can do. Those who think the president or any American have the power to do what the fuck they want in Somalia? You can go fuck yourself. I piss on text S.1745. Fuck you to the end of days, you arrogant piece of shit.

Yes, I’ve seen Bodhi’s post where he pointed it out. Just incredible that ‘truth&Freedom’ thinks that just because Congress authorise something, that that then suddenly becomes written in stone. That we should care or respect that. He must be fucking living in Never Never land. Stupid arsehole.

Actually you are right. That bill was not passed into laws.
The public laws proposed by the State Department, voted by Congress and signed by the president contain the same language of s1745, but it provides more details about what the military will do in Somalia.

“FY 2014 funds will be used to continue voluntary support to AMISOM,
including training and advisory services…to provide OPERATIONAL
support to Somali security forces”

This was the law enacted by the United States Congress and signed by the president of the United States:

“Provided further, That of the funds available for obligation under this heading in this Act and in prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs, up to $194,000,000 may be used to pay assessed expenses of international peacekeeping activities in Somalia.”

“The FY 2015 Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request of $115 million will support programming related to Somalia. FY 2015 funds will be used to continue voluntary
support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), including training…Accordingly, PKO funds will also be used to… provide logistical, operational…support to Somali military forces”

This is the bill enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president of the United States:

“Provided further, That funds available for obligation under this
heading in this Act may be used to pay assessed expenses of
international peacekeeping activities in Somalia”

According to Mona even when Congress gives the executive money to provide OPERATIONAL assistance to a military it is not an authorization to help that military target its enemies or even to send troops to provide that assistance.

It’s pretty amusing that a troll who rants all over the threads calling everyone “idiot” and “dumb ass” cites a failed bill as authorization for military action — or for anything else. The fookin thing was never made law.

Oh yes I am willing to be called an idiot for not properly check the status of that bill. That is fair to call me an idiot for picking the bill that was not enacted as opposed to the laws that were enacted and that stated the same thing in that bill with regards to the use of the military.

But I will still call you an idiot. Why? The lawyer you are
1) Continuously state Obama has no authorization to send troops to Somalia while Congress passed laws that specifically authorize him to provide military operational support to AMISOM and Somali Forces.

2)Continuously state the US Constitution and Congress rights to declare war as if this is the only case in which the US president can use force against armed groups

3) Does not know the difference when a bill is “failed” (rejected by Congress) and when the main points of that same bill is re packaged in other bills, which in that case became laws.

Even when you had the best opportunity to prove that I am a “dumb ass”, the best you could do was to pinpoint that bill which was not enacted as opposed to the following bills:
H.R 3546, H.R 2029 which contain similar language with bill 1745 specifically with regards to the use of the military in Somalia.

(PS I never call anybody dumb ass here. You are the one who called me a dumb ass while really only a dumb ass would state Congress has not authorized the US executive to send troops to Somalia while there is a law stating the executive ought to provide military operational support to Somali forces.

Where is your proof that the victims from the drone attack were about to attack US troops ? Do you really believe that by carrying out summary executions, and often killing many civilians the US will improve “security and stability in Somalia, or for that matter any other country that the USA has attacked? Whats your view on the slaughter of over 200,000 civilians in Iraq – mass slaughter based on lies about non existent weapons of mass destruction.

What legal authority does the US Government have to carry out renditions, torture of prisoners, and to setup covert Guantanamo style prisons in Somalia :

Further to educate you a little more and to help you learn that military attacks and interventions in Somalia will not improve security, or stability, and is unlikely to improve anything. Here is an article published in The Guardian that explains how decisions made by colonial rulers have affected Somalia to this day :

So you are correct, that bill was not enacted. The public laws proposed by the State Department, voted by Congress and signed by the president contain the same language of s1745, but it provides more details about what the military will do in Somalia.

“FY 2014 funds will be used to continue voluntary support to AMISOM,
including training and advisory services…to provide OPERATIONAL
support to Somali security forces”

This was the law enacted by the United States Congress and signed by the president of the United States:

“Provided further, That of the funds available for obligation under this heading in this Act and in prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs, up to $194,000,000 may be used to pay assessed expenses of international peacekeeping activities in Somalia.”

“The FY 2015 Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request of $115 million will support programming related to Somalia. FY 2015 funds will be used to continue voluntary
support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), including training…Accordingly, PKO funds will also be used to… provide logistical, operational…support to Somali military forces”

This is the bill enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president of the United States:

Of one thing I can be certain. If I’m not prepared to stand up for other peoples human rights, I can know for sure that the government will not respect my human rights. In fact, they bargain on us not giving a shit about other peoples human rights. They prefer that we believe their propaganda and lies.

Nobody seems capable of putting themselves in these peoples shoes. More than willing to scream that they live in the ‘free’ world and blah blah blah about human rights, but when it comes to something like this, where people are found guilty and executed without any form of trial, they think they deserve it. WTF? Nobody deserve to be executed on the basis that you might be an threat or that you are a potential terrorist. What fucking world does this people live in?

Imagine me walking into their houses and start killing them just because the possibility exist that the US might invade my country? Isn’t it exactly the same thing they blame terrorist for? The US government and the industrialist whose interest it serves is the true terrorist of this world. Fucking fascist that use fearmongering and warmongering for their own interest and nothing else.

It’s definitely not that they made the world a safer place through their actions. The only thing they’ve accomplished for themselves is to make sure that the proletariat always live in a state of perpetual war.

I am reminded of the “capability” argument the anti-Iran crowd loves to use.

I could disassemble my house and use the lumber to build a catapult.
So I am catapult capable.

I don’t have a catapult.
The material is not currently available for construction of a catapult.
I’ve never built a catapult.
I’ve never tested a catapult.
My theoretical catapult couldn’t hit my neighbors house.

But I am catapult capable and thus a threat, and they could justifiably bomb me in their eyes.

In other words, reason doesn’t matter to them.
They have an agenda and will find a justification for it.

My namesake, you guys live far away, far removed from the direct impact and effects of al-shabaab’s murderous activities that we deal with regularly. The events a few days ago that are the subject of this article, before you folks read about them in the international media, were already grapevine fodder in Somali Diaspora’s social networks. It wasn’t news, and no one was weeping!

I don’t agree with killing people that are 1000s of miles away unless congress allows it and even if it did, it should be up for review every year since we are talking about lives of humans. Now, the condition should also be that they are about to kill others for sure and there is a proof – this is my general view. Now, as an American Muslim, just don’t F/ing blame us muslims living in the west when some object to the ‘killing policy” and seek to revenge for their losses any means necessary when we are going around and killing them and also SUPPORTing their oppressors whether dictators or Israel.

I am surprised that everyone still does not see what a horribly dystopian situation they are living in right now! If you still trust the information you are getting then you are insane, and have been fully absorbed into this dystopian mindset! Stand in the mirror and absorb your own govspeak! How can you tell if the information you are using is actually factual? Inspect your mind!

Completely agree. But, apart from the usual trolls, the people who had their brains washed do not even read this excellent blog. What needs to happen for that to change? How do you reach a person that is deaf and blind?

Mr Greenwald says the US is not at war with Somalia, but take a look at this brief video in which General Wesley Clark exposes the Bush Administration’s plan to attack 7 Muslim countries in 5 years. The timetable was a bit off, but the targets are the same.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUZSS-REaKY

I imagine that was the Pentagon’s plan, they probably didn’t give Bush much say in the matter. Empire requires long-term strategy, 4-8 year presidents are not, in practice, trusted with this authority.

I think what the U.S. does now and has been since couching everything in the name of fighting Al Qaida is any opposition group (insurgency) that is violently trying to overthrow the often corrupt leadership of a country who are vassal clients of the DC gang, we essentially become the assassins for that client state. All of which is illegal. Obama has cemented the idea that the U.S. President is an imperial dictator over the planet. It is only going to get worse as other major powers (China, Russia, and India) stand up to this outrageous behavior.

The terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” have no legitimacy. They are propaganda terms, used to justify whatever horrors the namer wishes to inflict on those so named. As I told people shortly after 911, I don’t recognize or honor those terms. If you have a problem with someone or some activity, articulate it. Calling someone a terrorist is no more meaningful than calling them an asshole.

Your suggestion makes zero sense. If GG had a goal of getting more people to agree with the concepts he writes about, he would likely have to avoid using words like imperialistic. People who already use that word already understand GG. Also, neither Trump nor HRC will eliminate the free press.

What makes you think he needs to be better understood? The dude is a journalistic rock star.

Its going to be interesting to see how the drone argument develops over the next two decades. Every time you enter a new stage of of military technology, new questions of ethics and legality arise. War is inherently inhumane, and civilian casualties are, unfortunately, an inherent, grotesque part of warfare; this is not a rationalization for their occurrence, simply an indisputable observation of the nature of the beast. Wile I am in no means a proponent of war over diplomacy, or for the continuation of a military-industrial complex that seeks to further engineer unstable arms races, I don’t see how drones are any more unethical than previous methods of engagement by the US military. Its efficacy, in its beginning stages, has proven undoubtedly questionable, but so was dumping bombs from airplanes until laser-guided technology advanced, which, unfortunately didn’t prevent collateral damage from happening either. Did we know exactly who we were bombing during all the proxies wars of the cold war in SE Asian, killing millions of “communists,” yesteryear’s “terrorist”? Does the geographical proximity of the person pushing the button from a base, rather than inside a plane, really change the ethical dynamics of civilian casualties? Would the fact that a nuclear missile launch, to make an extreme analogy, be any less barbaric now because its done by punching in a code instead of released by plane?

Moreover, the reason you are seeing secret military bases pop all over Africa is to address this very issue of failed efficacy, as well as, to not repeat the same mistake we caused, then underestimated, in ISIS with Boko Haram, which is statistically an even deadlier group. Al shabaab may not have pledged their allegiance to ISIS, as boko haram has, but the Nairobi massacre and their other continued attacks should leave no doubt as to their intentions. The faster you are able to deploy drones based on ground-intelligence and up to the minute satellite imagery, the more confident you can be of its reliability and accuracy. That being said, these improvements in process, for lack of better phrase, will also not be a vanguard for collateral-less drone strikes; war will always be full of unintended consequences. I don’t agree with Americas overwhelming need and history of global interventionism, but I don’t think their preemptive strategy in Africa is opaque. European colonialism, with its complete negligence and indifference to the continent’s vast cultural and ethnic differences, has resulted in continued power vacuum struggles and genocides far surpassing the destabilization of the middle east. Somalia is known for its piracy. If it were able to hypothetically gain a strong hold over the Somalia gov. it could potentially have access to revenues in the way ISIS does with oil.

That said, as weapons technologies advance, so too does the era of information accessibility and dissemination; powerful nation-states are no longer able to control the pre/post-war propaganda narratives of their actions as the once were able. As such, we’ve has seen powerful nations readjust their military strategies towards proxy wars, were the burden of reputation and accountability are far less demonizing and play more to their favor. This is the far more troubling aspect of drone technology and the inevitable increase in unmanned weapon automation. While the CIA has for decades covertly plotted, botched, and executed assassinations and coups around the world, it now seems as if they no longer care whether they have legal justification or not. I don’t believe governments are ever truly transparent about their military strategies, the efficacy of such strategies, or their mistakes; drones, however, seem to be pushing that veil of transparency into a darker technocratic corner. When metal is the only thing at stake in attack, as compared to civilian life, you don’t have to face the human anguish from your countries people, especially if deaths continue to amount in failed strategies; its far less emotionally resonant, and thus far less susceptible to public outcry and critique. The vitriol seen from the lies of the Iraq war are not as palpable in drone warfare; you don’t have to face a public conscience, you simply write a new check.

Whatever your opinion on “global terrorism,” there needs to be a stricter, more transparent checks and balances infrastructure for drone warfare ,as well as a review of its legal validity by congress and the judicial branch in the near future. The debate whether drones or manned warfare are more pragmatic, or which leads to more radicalization will continue, but the legal precedent of oblique, unaccountable military assassination programs, be it the US or other countries, cannot be continued to be glossed over in such a dismissive attitude.

The President has arrogantly substituted his executive assassination for the Constitutional demands with respect to aggression in the name of the citizens of this country. He has just killed 150 Somalians with the justification that he (!) believed they were terrorists in a country where we have not been invited and with which we are in no declared conflict. It is this colossal arrogance that makes such action so offensive (in all senses of the word).

MUST-SEE. Everyone should watch the recent drone episode on the CBS series “The Good Wife”. Maybe it was really an American on U.S. soil that was assassinated?

The show made the legal case that when they use a foreign name in a foreign nation – it could really be an American in Texas or another state – using pseudonyms. Even if hypothetical the show pointed out a major loophole in the letter and spirit of the law.

The big question is: if a “suspect” (which means doubt) can be captured and brought to trial, could the U.S. government become a communist style secret police – turning in their own fellow citizens?

It is a sad thing for me to even suggest this, but I would recommend including an estimated cost of the armaments and overhead in every article like this because the legal and moral arguments just aren’t compelling for the propagandized masses.

$20,000,000 worth of missiles, etc. to take out presumed “bad guys” who can be replaced for $5,000 is something that may just sink in for even the most inured.

“Obama is Wasting Your Money” shouldn’t have to be the title, but I’d bet a lot more people would read the article and maybe, perhaps, accidentally learn a thing or two about right and wrong along the way.

Like I said.
Sad.

But even just as a journalism thing, including relevant information about the costs makes sense.

I remember, during our war on Vietnam, looking at “the numbers” and explaining to the audience at our anti-war coffee house that it would be much cheaper to hire the Mob to kill combatants for us, and that they wouldn’t take out nearly as many innocent civilians.

This article amounts to more journalism where facts are selectively presented to the reader to tell a story which could be as far from reality as the government account of the use of drones which has stated that no civilians have died in drone attacks.

“……Beyond that, the U.S. government’s own documents prove that in the vast majority of cases — 9 out of 10 in fact — it is killing people other than its intended targets. Last April, the New York Times published an articleunder the headline “Drone Strikes Reveal Uncomfortable Truth: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die.” It quoted the scholar Micah Zenko saying, “Most individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names.”…..”

This particular statistic is sited often by the Intercept and it is misleading journalism – at best. The perception from reading the account by the Intercept is that drones miss their intended targets nine out of ten times; thus, the ones who are killed could just be anyone who happened to be in that place at the wrong time – women, children and other innocent people. The fact that drones miss the intended target 90% of the time does not mean that a high percentage of the ones killed are innocent civilians. The “scholar”, Mr Zenko (in the same New York Times article) points out:

“…….Mr. Zenko said that an average of separate counts of American drone strikes by three organizations, the New America Foundation, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Long War Journal, finds that 522 strikes have killed 3,852 people, 476 of them civilians. But those counts, based on news accounts and some on-the-ground interviews, are considered very rough estimates…….”

That is a very high percentage of “militant” to civilian death ratio albeit just a rough estimate. That would suggest that drone operators are correctly targeting terrorists even if the intended target was not with the militants. Furthermore, according to the (same) New York Times article, eight Americans have been killed in drone strikes:

“……Mr. Zenko noted that with the new disclosures, a total of eight Americans have been killed in drone strikes. Of those, only one, the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who joined Al Qaeda in Yemen and was killed in 2011, was identified and deliberately targeted…Though by most accounts six of the eight Americans were allied with Al Qaeda…….”

So roughly three quarters of the Americans killed in drone strikes were aligned with al-Qaeda even if they were not the target of the drone strike. Joining al-Qaeda could lead to your death – American, or not. Additionally, drones offer the best chance of limiting civilian casualties according to the same New York Times article:

“…….Most security experts still believe that drones, which allow a scene to be watched for hours or days through video feeds, still offer at least the chance of greater accuracy than other means of killing terrorists. By most accounts, conventional airstrikes and ground invasions kill a higher proportion of noncombatants……”

None of these statistics are pointed out in the article which indicates the failings of advocacy journalism. Finally, the US rightly targeted the Kenyan terrorist organization responsible for brutal attacks on civilian targets:

“……Masked al-Shabab militants stormed dormitories at a university in eastern Kenya early Thursday, killing at least 147 people in the worst terror attack on Kenyan soil in nearly two decades, officials said…..”

It has already been established that the pro-torture, deeply authoritarian Craig Summers rejects the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Now he also rants in total disregard for Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

In this article Greenwald shows himself once again to be more lawyer than journalist using selective quotes to advance his argument while ignoring quotes that undermine his argument. Once again, I just have provided the other side of the story.

It has already been established that Mona is an irrational idiot who does not understand statistics and an ignorant lawyer who has no idea that the US Congress authorized military operations in Somalia.

Let me get this straight – you agree that the United States kills an awful lot of people in countries that it isn’t in fact at war with, and that many of them are in fact completely innocent – your only quibble is with the percentage of the people killed who aren’t?

This is morally empty reasoning. The United States has no right whatsoever to kill people in foreign countries simply because they are *suspected* of terrorism, particularly when a lot of other randoms are usually killed at the same time.

And worse – the threat to an American from terrorism is minuscule. It’s not like you’re throwing away any possible status as “the good guys” for any logical reason – you’d doing it out of sheer cowardice.

“……..Let me get this straight – you agree that the United States kills an awful lot of people in countries that it isn’t in fact at war with, and that many of them are in fact completely innocent – your only quibble is with the percentage of the people killed who aren’t?…..”

Are you suggesting that no innocent civilians should ever be killed in a war zone? That’s absurd. Minimizing the civilian deaths should always be the goal and the use of drones minimizes civilian deaths – as the article in the New York Times cited by Greenwald says.

“…..The United States has no right whatsoever to kill people in foreign countries simply because they are *suspected* of terrorism…..”

Can you just quit pretending that al-Shabaab is a terror cell in Somalia? They have an estimated 7000-9000 fighters. They pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and they conducted terrorists attacks outside of Somalia – one of which I pointed out in my first post. They have primarily targeted non Muslims for murder. Whether Obama cites the AUMF, Shabaab’s link to al-Qaeda (who we are at war with) or their brutal murder of civilians (humanitarian reasons), the US is right to provide support to the Somali government.

Oh, and they are not suspected of being *terrorists*; they are terrorists.

…War Journal, finds that 522 strikes have killed 3,852 people, 476 of them civilians. But those counts, based on news accounts and some on-the-ground interviews, are considered very rough estimates…….”

That is a very high percentage of “militant” to civilian death ratio albeit just a rough estimate. That would suggest that drone operators are correctly targeting terrorists even if the intended target was not with the militants.

Well that depends on the conditions required to be declared a civilian. Why make it easy? “The fact that drones miss their intended target 90% of the time”, if true, destroys the entire rationale for carrying out drone attacks: that precision targeting takes out intended militants.

If you believe that drones only kill the intended target 1 in 10 times, but about 7 people are killed per drone strike, then 70 people are killed in order to hit one intended target. It is not possible to believe that most of those seventy just happen to be other valid targets. That is, it is absurd to believe that on average less than one “civilian” per drone strike is killed.

“…….Well that depends on the conditions required to be declared a civilian. Why make it easy? “The fact that drones miss their intended target 90% of the time”, if true, destroys the entire rationale for carrying out drone attacks: that precision targeting takes out intended militants……”

No it does not. You need to read my first post again and note the high amount of estimated terrorists that are killed even if the intended target is not with the other terrorists at that time, or survives the bombing. The bombings are not random which is what is implied by Greenwald’s statement – and your response. The drone operators are not targeting families strolling to the local mosque.

I think you are wrong when you suggest disbelief that most of the other people killed who were not the intended target are valid targets. Statistically (and I admit these are rough estimates), you are wrong based on the New York Times article which estimates about 12% of the deaths are civilians.

would you like to be the good guy that gets drone killed because you happen to be where bad guys are? I don’t think you would. furthermore, what will limit the power of the American Government if it is not the laws.

This particular statistic is sited often by the Intercept and it is misleading journalism – at best. The perception from reading the account by the Intercept is that drones miss their intended targets nine out of ten times; thus, the ones who are killed could just be anyone who happened to be in that place at the wrong time – women, children and other innocent people. The fact that drones miss the intended target 90% of the time does not mean that a high percentage of the ones killed are innocent civilians. The “scholar”, Mr Zenko (in the same New York Times article) points out:

my perception is not that the drones miss their intended target and kill who ever is there, they target who ever is there not knowing who they are.

@craig – I do not get the point you are trying to get across. Are you pro-bombing whoever happens to be “bad” on that day or you actually believe those atrocities were justified? “Are you suggesting that no innocent civilians should ever be killed in a war zone? ” – this is the predicament, the “war zone”. For a war zone to exist there must be a declared war. Last time that was checked the US of A is not a war with Somalia, Senegal, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, or the rest of the countries they have carried drone attacks and have special forces actively deployed. Hence, there is no justified civilian casualties whatsoever simply based on the wording POTUS and the Pentagon have been employing. Based on the same rationale, should there be a “suspected al Qaeda cell” in, say Texas, they should be bombed into oblivion, even without any proof justifying it. Do you see how flawed your logic is?

“……I do not get the point you are trying to get across. Are you pro-bombing whoever happens to be “bad” on that day or you actually believe those atrocities were justified?….

In my opinion, they are justified. Even the Geneva Conventions recognizes that civilians will be killed in a “war zone”. That is unfortunate, but it’s also reality.

“……For a war zone to exist there must be a declared war…..”

The US is not at war with Somalia. The US is at war with non state actors like ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda (remember 911?). Al-Shabaab is affiliated with al-Qaeda so can be targeted under legislation passed by Congress in 2001 (AUMF). Al-Shabaab is an international terrorist organization – and it makes not one fucking bit of difference if al-Shabaab (or ISIS) existed in 2001 or not.

Even if Congress declared war on Somalia, would you support the war effort then? Very unlikely in my opinion. Thus, you just are attempting to use a legal means to stop from targeting an internationally recognized terrorist organization who targets civilians for murder.

“……. Based on the same rationale, should there be a “suspected al Qaeda cell” in, say Texas, they should be bombed into oblivion, even without any proof justifying it. Do you see how flawed your logic is?…..”

Can you just drop this idea that al-Shabaab is just a terror cell. They have employed between 7000 and 9000 fighters. And they are not suspected of being terrorists. They are terrorists.

@craig even by the US AUMF this is illegal given that Section 2 Part a states: IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Boko Haram and al Shabab did not exist and are not related to 9/11 hence, following the text of AUMF said military action in Somalia is both illegal and unconstitutional. Should there be evidence, justification, reasoning behind it such as “actionable intelligence was acquired and proves that X and Y were leaders of a training camp, recruiting fighter, etc.”, that would be somewhat reasonable. Given the track record the White House and the Pentagon have about sharing such details we might as well assume those people were divine angels purifying water for the people of the world singing Kumbaya as there is the same amount of evidence for that as much as that they were “terrorists”.

It may be useful to note the US Government’s position: “‘[I]imminent'”
threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States
to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” (2011 DOJ White Paper, “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force”) Needless to say, the USG strives mightily to ensure that this notion never makes it into a legitimate Art. III proceeding for adjudication.

I know! Let’s try uniting all nations and adhering to to the international laws that we all agree to! Ya! That’s the ticket! Cheney, Bush, and I guess now Obama, to the Hague.
The problem is, the shyte stained sociopaths will skate, unless we either chase them on the ground or drone them.
How do we stop this snow ball to hell? We are all a part of a rather dynamic and energetic phenomena, who’s origins are of constant debate. Can solutions be less complicated?

did you deliberately miss this part or are you just a very little attentive reader?

“But why does it have troops there at all in need of protection? The answer: The troops are there to operate drone bases and attack people they regard as a threat to them. But if they weren’t there in the first place, these groups could not pose a threat to them.

In sum: We need U.S. troops in Africa to launch drone strikes at groups that are trying to attack U.S. troops in Africa. It’s the ultimate self-perpetuating circle of imperialism: We need to deploy troops to other countries in order to attack those who are trying to kill U.S. troops who are deployed there.”

They may put them in a combat environment and may be killed by other fellow Somalis. It’s their war. Like it or not.

But as clearly specified above, and (unlike your point) supported by facts and research, the US ha NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to bomb them in their country.

The U.S. isn’t bombing “their country”, they’re specifically bombing violent jihadists who are destroying that country. Al-Shabab is not representative of Somalia and most Somalians are not losing any sleep over these jihadists being killed.

The U.S. has troops in Africa to support and train other (internationally sanctioned) Africans to fight these Islamist groups which are a growing plague all over the world. It’s not just an internal Somalian issue when these groups start targeting foreign civilians in other countries (like Westgate mall in Kenya).

Since 2001, the U.S. government has legally justified its we-bomb-wherever-we-want approach by pointing to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted by Congress in the wake of 9/11 to authorize the targeting of al Qaeda and “affiliated” forces. But al Shabaab did not exist in 2001 and had nothing to do with 9/11. Indeed, the group has not tried to attack the U.S. but instead, as the New York Times’ Charlie Savage noted in 2011, “is focused on a parochial insurgency in Somalia.” As a result, reported Savage, even “the [Obama] administration does not consider the United States to be at war with every member of the Shabaab.”

Instead, in the Obama administration’s view, specific senior members of al Shabaab can be treated as enemy combatants under the AUMF only if they adhere to al Qaeda’s ideology, are “integrated” into its command structure, and could conduct operations outside of Somalia. That’s why the U.S. government yesterday claimed that all the people it killed were about to launch attacks on U.S. soldiers: because, even under its own incredibly expansive view of the AUMF, it would be illegal to kill them merely on the ground that they were all members of al Shabaab, and the government thus needs a claim of “self-defense” to legally justify this.

The government is not claiming the AUMF authorizes this. So, what does?

But even under the “self-defense” theory that the U.S. government invoked, it is allowed — under its own policies promulgated in 2013 — to use lethal force away from an active war zone (e.g., Afghanistan) “only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.” Perhaps these Terrorists were about to imminently attack U.S. troops stationed in the region — immediately after the tassel on their graduation cap was turned at the “graduation ceremony,” they were going on the attack — but again, there is literally no evidence that any of that is true.

Just like there wasn’t evidence they hit a terrorist training camp… until the terrorists admitted it.

under the “self-defense” theory that the U.S. government invoked, it is allowed — under its own policies promulgated in 2013 — to use lethal force away from an active war zone (e.g., Afghanistan) “only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.”

The AUMF and this “self-defense” theory are two different things. It comes down to whether or not the Shabab jihadists were about to launch an attack on U.S. forces and their allies. If so, then the strike against them was legitimate.

“Any resulting civilian deaths are the responsibility of the terrorists who put them in a combat environment, regardless of who actually dropped the bomb.”

Exactly! Why are civilians living in the areas the US is bombing??? That’s what I want to know!

Clearly, it’s either the fault of the children, infants, and innocent men and women that are obliterated…. or it’s the “terrorists” fault… even though there is nothing to confirm they are terrorists beyond the Official Word.

PS. They hate us for our freedom and any blow-back from our drone strikes is outrageous, unconscionable, and clearly “terrorism”!

The drone war is the zombic progeny of humanity’s class war. Here we have a man who has eight + figures in the bank, who sends his own children to an exclusive private school, while in the same day, he uses the levers of power to murder some of the poorest children on the planet. No wonder the media spends all their time telling us what a great father he is. And if we think for a minute on why this rich (brown skinned) man is murdering poor innocent (often brown skinned) children, there can be only one real answer: class.

Seriously, you have to wonder if they ever get jealous of the insubordinate branch. Or do they just sigh with relief that all they really need to do is collect money and occasionally step in front of a camera?

*I would put our International Humanitarian Law/Law of Armed Conflict obligations, which the Pentagon assures the world are met in all Drone operations, (!), front and center … but that would require some old-fashioned subordination of national sovereignty and interests to the broader claims of global unity and security.

International humanitarian law (IHL) is the law that regulates the conduct of war (jus in bello). It is that branch of international law which seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in hostilities, and by restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to combatants. IHL is inspired by considerations of humanity and the mitigation of human suffering. “It comprises a set of rules, established by treaty or custom, that seeks to protect persons and property/objects that are (or may be) affected by armed conflict and limits the rights of parties to a conflict to use methods and means of warfare of their choice”.[1] It includes “the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, as well as subsequent treaties, case law, and customary international law.”[2] It defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral nations, and individuals engaged in warfare, in relation to each other and to protected persons, usually meaning non-combatants. It is designed to balance humanitarian concerns and military necessity, and subjects warfare to the rule of law by limiting its destructive effect and mitigating human suffering.[3] *wikipedia

You would think a “lawyer” would do her research before she makes a fool of herself:

“What congressional declaration or authorization permits the president to bomb fighters in Somalia?”

Somalia Stabilization Act of 2013:

“Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should…
(5) carry out all diplomatic, economic, intelligence, MILITARY, and development activities in Somalia within the context of a comprehensive strategy coordinated through an interagency process.”

If you were not a lawyer, then I would say you are just ignorant. But since you are a lawyer who should know better, then I call you an idiot. Just because Greenwald does not mention that congressional bill that specifically authorizes the executive to use the military in Somalia does not meant it does not exist. Greenwald relies on idiots like you to trust him to the point of not even performing a basic legal research.

As GG notes, ” the complete normalization of the model whereby the U.S. president kills whomever he wants, wherever he wants, without regard for any semblance of law, process, accountability, or evidence” stands in the way of citizen outrage at our wholly lawless behavior in the world. When I talk to seemingly educated people about politics, this enormous issue is indeed outside of the realm of consideration, and when I inject it into any conversation, people make faces, change the topic, joke about my “radicalism,” in short, do anything but address the charges. As this is the very thing that makes our lives dangerous and our future uncertain, I am always stunned how little concern people have about it. It is frightening.

Yes PI, I’ve had that same experience many times. Many of these folks think they are real patriots who love the Constitution. I tell them that very document — the supreme law of the land — reserves to Congress the power to declare war.

I further explain why the drafters and ratifiers of the Constitution included that — the long history of kings making war for political gain and profit. Without a democratic check on the Executive, the Executive is a king.

These are not remotely”radical” arguments. They are fundamentally American.

You two are hanging out with the wrong people. None of the people I discuss things like this with think it’s OK for Obama or any other president to go around the world killing people for any reason, let alone for resources like oil.

NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley gave his two cents on the presidential race on Tuesday by saying “all politics is rich people screwing poor people” and that “poor people are too stupid to know they’re just chess pieces in a game”.
[snip]
Barkley said he wasn’t exactly thrilled by the Democratic party – “I’ve always voted Democratic. Always. I don’t know why. I’m trying to figure out exactly what they’ve done for us” –

Who knew the Round Mound of Rebound was a political economy savant? Guess I’ll have to give him credit where credit is due.

I seem to remember Barkley being a Republican. He switched when the Tea Baggers started to take over the party. His comment was, I was a Republican until the Republicans lost their minds.

This guy’s a loudmouth blowhard, I wouldn’t put any stock in anything he says. I agree with the comment you quoted, but it would take a lot more than that for me to view Barkley as anything more than an entertaining sports figure.

It was just a link for fun. That’s why the “who knew” and “give credit where due” for the particular statement. I too remember when he said he was a “Republican until they lost their minds.”

I was, maybe inappropriately, just trying to bring a little levity to a serious thread.

Trust me, nothing Charles Barkley has to say on any topic, including basketball, do I attach any importance or value you to. And his golf swing is horrible, which as a fairly serious recreational golfer makes me cringe every time I see it.

Robert Besseling, an analyst with EXX Africa, added: “While the killing of some 150 al-Shabaab fighters, if confirmed, will be a blow to the group, it is unlikely to have fatally struck its fighting capability within Somalia.

“Further US airstrikes alone are also unlikely to thwart al-Shabaab’s offensive around Mogadishu and other areas where the group has expanded its operations such as northwards into Galmudug and Puntland.”

Is it a feature or a bug of the West’s foreign policy? Or is it the definition of self-perpetuating insanity? Not sure how you kill an idea except to discredit it, but America and its allies are hell-bent on trying to do it via force of arms.

Please peeps, ignore the troll truth&Freedom It takes over the threads, posting voluminous insults, name-calling and inanity. It’s been kicked out of here before under different monikers. To engage is to help it do it’s disruptive thing.

The latest attacks come after months of violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories in which 183 Palestinians and 28 Israelis have been killed since October.

That’s about a 6-7 to 1 ratio which is lower than the historical average. Maybe that’s a silver lining or reason to hope. The alternative being the Palestinians just lay down and die, I guess. Not sure what other opportunities for self-determination or an independent state has been left to them.

If you are a liberal with self esteem issues because you find society depressing, just take drugs or find some other way to release that pent up energy. Releasing that energy on an internet forum will only make you appear weak and nobody will pay attention to what you are saying.

All surveillance all the time. Full spectrum dominance. STASI would be jealous. “It” is classified. “We” make changes, but you can’t see what they are–just trust us, maybe we’ll show you in the future–because your safety is our top priority.

We already know the numbers, the point is not the numbers, it’s: “how do they know these 150 people were all terrorists?”
the self apologetic theory that: “they must have all been terrorists preparing attacks against US interests, therefore, we had the right to kill them” which is groundless.
“There was no independent way to verify the claim”
hello?

Excellent essay and disclosure of another blunder by the USA. We will muse down the road “why they hate us” when the associates of the Somalian dead may inflict their response in kind in reaction to their “day of infamy”.

After all, wasn’t it just last week that former CIA Director assured all of us that the military would not carry out a President Trump’s orders to target the families of potential terrorism suspects because, and I quote, “they would not carry out an illegal order, even from the President?”

[clutching my pearls]
I simply won’t believe it!
*sarcasm*

(You are awesome and are a journalistic hero of mine, Mr. Greenwald.
Please keep up the terrific and vital work.)

1. U.S. acting with consent of Somalia government, as other international/ actors including AMISOM forces.Therefore no violation of international law in this respect.
2. Al-Shabaab admitted being attacked but denied number of casuality as exaggerated.
3. How number of killed ascertained not clear yet, civilian casuality possible.
4. Somalia’s unique geopolitics, prolonged conflict, presence of ethnic groups in at least

The official line hasn’t changed in this regard, dead = enemy, a court case or two might have made a very small dent in that assumption but other than that it stands strong for most.

Everyone killed should be named with age and picture of them when alive and historical information. Without that nothing can be verified. Plus personal information might make people think twice about lives they so cruelly & carelessly dismiss with disdain.

Reading this powerful article reminds me again of Vietnam and the substitution of enemy death statistics for success. Extraordinary that so many are willing to support drone killing despite the evidence of failure, illegality and immorality. (Recall Gen. Mike Flynn’s Al Jazeera interview in July 2015 on the counter-productive results of drone killing and, yet, it goes on.)

One great difference: U.S. killing in Vietnam finally ended when the draft reached American college students. No help there with drones.

You need to improve your arguments. It seems you love being applauded by idiots.

1) “The U.S. is not at war in Somalia. Congress has never declared war on Somalia, nor has it authorized the use of military force there. Morality and ethics to the side for the moment: what legal authority does Obama even possess to bomb this country?….But al-Shabab did not exist in 2001 and had nothing to do with 9/11.”

The judge would kick you out of the room for being stupid.
a) The US is not at war with Somalia. US military as well as many African military operations in Somalia against Al Shabab are done at the request of the Federal Government of Somalia, which is fully recognized internationally with a seat at the United Nations. A situation similar to Iraq and Afghanistan where elected, and recognized governments have publicly and officially requested military support against terrorism.
b) It is completely irrelevant that Al Shabab has nothing to do with 9/11. It is possible that even the Taliban leadership did not know about Al Qaeda 9/11 plans. However, providing assistance to a global terrorist organization is a crime. In this case, it is military assistance by specially designated terrorists. That is an imbecilic argument. Should the US attack Al Qaeda and ignore those who are hiding, training and protecting Al Qaeda fighters?

“But if they weren’t there in the first place, these groups could not pose a threat to them.”

“It’s the ultimate self-perpetuating circle of imperialism: we need to deploy troops to other countries in order to attack those who are trying to kill U.S. troops who are deployed there.”

This is not only an idiotic argument. It is actually very pathetic.

How many Indonesian troops are fighting against ISIS, or Al Qaeda in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq or Africa?
How many Argentinian troops fought against Hezbollah?
How many Swiss troops have fought against anybody in the Middle East?

Those countries did exactly what terrorist sympathizers like you have been advocated but their citizens got targeted and massacred. Some on their own soil!

If a government can request military help from the US to fight rebels and get it, I can guarantee you that government is illegitimate. If a regime is helped by an empire, it means it’s either controlled or part of that empire. That much is obvious. Lots of regimes widely considered illegitimate have a seat at the UN, so that doesn’t tell us much. The reality is that the TFG was imposed externally, and there’s no evidence it enjoys any type of popular support. Further, it’s clear Al-Shabaab only exists due to political destabilization brought about by foreign intervention.

“If a government can request military help from the US to fight rebels and get it, I can guarantee you that government is illegitimate”

The people decide whether their government is legitimate or not. I understand you have to distort logic, create your own laws in order to support your weird arguments. So, it does not matter how many people voted for the current government of Nigeria. It is completely irrelevant that the top candidates in the Afghan election and the Jirga requested military help even before the election. And it does not matter that those elections results were deemed acceptable by many observers who acknowledged serious irregularities in those countries with poor democratic institutions. What matters for you is the feeling that you must have that the US is wrong. So, you must reject those governments in order to support your argument. That is the difference between the anti American and the Patriot. The patriot will demand an investigation to know whether civilians died as result of negligeance from US forces. The anti American will redefine terrorism, reject local authorities to prove himself that the US is the terrorist not those massacred those civilians at the Kenyan mall.

Congress gave the United States President the authority to provide military assistance to Somalia against Al Shabab. Congress gave the United States president authority to provide military assistance to Canada (through NATO) in case that country gets attacked. Idiot, indeed.

I was going to make many of the same arguments, but now that you’ve done that I’ll quibble with you instead.

It’s true that the U.S. was “just helping Somalia”. The catch is that the government of Somalia is disputed. What we’re doing is nobler, but still somewhat comparable to Russia “helping” out the Donetsk and Kharkiv separatists. Or more to the point, it’s a ‘police action’ comparable to our help for the government of South Vietnam.

One distinction comes down to whether the government is worth fighting for. If Somalia’s federal leadership turns out to be another Diem, we’re wasting our time. To repeat something I said recently, the U.S. has a way of finding a turd castle in the jungle and sitting good soldiers on top of it to defend it with their lives until it smooshes out from under their asses. However— if the Somalia government turns out to be honest and just, or at least relatively so, and offers new hope and peace for its citizens in quiet contemplation of their human liberties, well, then it is a noble cause.

The other distinction comes down to who gets to pick the good cause. As in Vietnam, the president has and abuses too much leeway to get into another country’s conflict. The U.S. Army might not quite be the French Foreign Legion, but sometimes you wonder who’s getting paid to bring them into battle anyway. Oh, I understand why – our system before the abuses started was quite reasonable, and we quite reasonably sat out of the Second World War until it was almost too late. I can kind of picture “Lend Lease” getting thrown out by the courts and Britain falling, or the Army hamstrung in the battle against Rommel by the need to get a fresh declaration of war for each country in Africa the Germans turned up in. Still, the system we have now is prone to its own sort of risks, risks that have cost real lives for half a century.

After the Cold War the US has tried not to get deeply involved in African conflicts. Even genocides did not really attract the US attention. If Al Shabab was only dedicated at massacring other African tribes the US involvement would certainly be very limited. In this particular situation you have a terrorist organization dedicated not only at massacring Somalis, but also at massacring other Africans in neighboring states and at helping Al Qaeda whose past time is to kill whomever disagrees with them around the world. So, it is not like Vietnam when you had the Chinese, the Russians against the French or the US. In this case you have the African Union, the Russians, the Chinese, the whole United Nations against Al Shabab.

“After the Cold War the US has tried not to get deeply involved in African conflicts. ”
You need to update your programming. The US is angling for bases all over Africa.
Also, you gave me a real laugh with this:
“…the Army hamstrung in the battle against Rommel by the need to get a fresh declaration of war for each country in Africa the Germans turned up in. ”
Finally, remember what happened to the guy (let’s call him the Somalian “government”) who hired another guy (let’s call him the US) to rape his wife (let’s call her the Somalian opposition). It was supposed to be “fun.” It didn’t turn out that way for any of the participants.http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7756586

“How many Indonesian troops are fighting against ISIS, or Al Qaeda in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq or Africa?”

Indonesian Islamic terrorism has been back-and-forth since it got Independence. The original terrorist group arose because it disagreed with the government ceding land to the Dutch. The terrorists there have been trying to secede ever since. You’re argument is nonsense because Indonesian troops fight DARUL ISLAM, not any of the groups you happen to name.

“How many Argentinian troops fought against Hezbollah?”

Argentinians were collateral damage. Terrorists were aiming at Israelis and just didn’t care who got in the way.

“How many Swiss troops have fought against anybody in the Middle East?”

Again, targets were Israelis.

Oh look, in every instance the terrorists were going after nationals of nations that DID war against them. Sure, it’s not Argentina’s fault they got hit, but the root cause of the attack was still a country warring in the Middle East. It’s almost like foreign interventionism endangers everyone and should be despised because of that fact.

At some point, reading your comment, I was thinking, ok, now that he’s quoted half of the article, the genius is going to hit back with some solid argument.

Only to be hugely disappointed:

“How many Indonesian troops are fighting against ISIS, or Al Qaeda in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq or Africa?
How many Argentinian troops fought against Hezbollah?
How many Swiss troops have fought against anybody in the Middle East?”

Can you possibly debate above article with some RELEVANT points?

Are you sure this is the article you wanted to comment on? maybe you swapped tabs in your browser?

Glad to be one of the readers you call idiotic. Coming from you, such insult is a medal on my chest.

“Glad to be one of the readers you call idiotic. Coming from you, such insult is a medal on my chest.”

In that case I gave you a silver medal for stupidity.
The point is very relevant. Greenwald argues in that article that if US troops were not in Somalia then, they could not be threatened by terrorist groups. That sounds logical. The problem is that terrorist groups have proved they do no care whether a country sends troops the territory they operate. They do not even care whether a country is part of their conflicts. I gave example to back this point: Argentina, Indonesia, Switzerland. Those countries did not deploy troops anywhere to fight against Al Qaeda, ISIS…but their citizens got targeted, and killed. So, the idea constantly promoted by terrorist sympathizers that if a country stays away from the conflicts involved with terrorists its citizens will be safe is just ridiculous.

The US has a very good reason for being in Somalia; it ‘s the next Saudi Arabia. From an article last year:

With excellent access to shipping lanes and supposedly massive untapped wealth (perhaps as much as 110 billion barrels) it is no surprise that multinational oil companies are intrigued.

The US may not articulate its foreign policy goals very well, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any underlying strategy. There is a good argument for supporting the puppet regime in Mogadishu. However, it doesn’t fall easily into the good vs bad narrative and therefore is not suitable for public discussion.

Have you heard of a decent candidate for Somalia’s new royalty? Or do you suppose they’ll just colonize and install a viceroy as is no doubt planned for Libya, you know, to protect the new puppet government in Tunisia?

“There is a good argument for supporting the puppet regime in Mogadishu.”

What makes that government a “puppet” regime? I am asking because very popular governments around the world do request and obtain military support from the US ( South Korea, Germany, Japan..). I am curious to know whether you classify a government “puppet” simply because it requests military assistance.

Really a better term is client state. The U.S. has had them since the 1800’s. Some countries graduate out of that status, but it’s a rare event. Go read anything written by Kissinger if you don’t believe it.

If a foreign government starts building a military base without even seeking the permission of the local government, then there’s a good chance it’s a puppet government. From a good summary of recent Somali history:

Aside from training and building Somalia’s intelligence infrastructure, the Americans are building a new, secretive military base 70 kilometers southwest of Mogadishu, without any official arrangement with the Somali government. The base has a capacity to house up to 100,000 troops, according to one source, who wished not to be named. As a result, the locals are seeing an influx of not only American troops, but private contractors, mercenaries and Big Oil “security.”

“If a foreign government starts building a military base without even seeking the permission of the local government, then there’s a good chance it’s a puppet government.”

This is a flawed argument. Many countries has laws and constitutions that allow central governments to sign treaties with foreign governments regardless of what local governments think. According to your argument Japan has a puppet government even thought most of the highly educated Japanese who have strong democratic institutions available to them do not believe so and the government follows the laws as it supposed to. It seems, like Greenwald, you are just redefining reality to support your point.

Your link does not work with my computer, but this is another link regarding building military sites in Somalia

This is what Abdighani Abdi Jama, a minister in the LOCAL government of Kismayo stated about the building of US bases:
” They have a base over there….they have high tech; they have drones…we are really benefiting”

It does not appear that local authorities are against those bases. Specially in a fragmented country like Somalia where warlords’ approval is necessary for almost every project.

So even if one follows your flawed argument, you cannot demonstrate that the Somali government is a puppet based on that criteria.

You get back to the original point. The question is not whether we are for or against a puppet regime. The question is: what is a puppet regime?
You stated
“If a foreign government starts building a military base without even seeking the permission of the local government, then there’s a good chance it’s a puppet government.”

1) That criteria is not clear with the words “good chance”.
2) In Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq there are local governments that welcome US bases, so even using that criteria you cannot state that the Somali government is a puppet regime.
3) There are democratic countries where the laws make it clear that the central government does not need the permission of local governments to sign treaties with foreign governments. That is really a very weak argument to classify democratic governments as puppets or as clients when candidates clearly stated before being elected that they will use the law of the land to enter into treaties with foreign governments.

So again, what criteria do you use in order to describe a particular government “puppet”?

The modern template for this, I think, started with Panama under OOTW and was called “Just Cause” – since then every engagement is justified with Thomas Paine like arguments. Regime change bringing democracy. This is the ‘just cause’ from here on out.

The antecedent to the above, I think was pointed out by Gen. Butler first in his war racket writings.

What else is oil related, but falls under ‘just cause’? Perhaps the largest military exer in Saudi Arabia. I believe one of the royals stated: Bashar can be elected out or forced out, either way the goal is his removal. There is speculation that should SA invade Syria oil prices should increase.

When I read things like this I always think of Howard Zinn saying that one of the most important things people can do in response to the war on terror is to study history. There is a generation of Americans which doesn’t know that these are not normal times.

I was just finishing up with the peoples history of the US and it’s pretty much SOP. The ruling class wants to maintain or expand it’s reach and it whips up the poor with fear and sends them off to subjugate a bunch who doesn’t want to give up their counties resources and become a captive market.

recently finished the WikiLeaks Files with overviews of the cables leaked giving a bit of perspective to Empire U$A … brilliant resource, insightful analysis and pretty hard to contest the contents of diplomatic cables.

Nice piece, as usual, Glenn.
At this point the intelligence community should have zero credibility with the press, having previously claimed that wedding parties and funerals they attacked were groups of terrorists. They might be right this time, but certainly there is no evidence of it.

We have all read the claims that killing innocent people with drone strikes is counterproductive, and that we should not be attacking countries we are not at war with simply because our enemies are there, but apparently the supporters of such policies are unconvinced. Perhaps a quick history lesson might help. During the time Nixon was president, the US started secretly bombing Cambodia and Laos in a failed attempt to disrupt the North Vietnamese supply lines. Pressure was brought to unseat Prince Sihanouk, based on the false premise that he could stop the flow of arms but didn’t, and as a result, the Khumer Rouge came to power, and committed a genocide, killing some 3 million people before they were done. Now Nixon (following Kissinger’s advice) was not personally involved in the killings, of course, but he was the facilitator, just as Obama is now the facilitator of the rise of Jihad in Africa. Years from now I am sure debates will rage among historians about what came first, the terrorists or the drones. But in any event it is clear that the policy of killing everyone perceived by the Dr. Strangeloves of our intelligence and military communities is going to fail, if for no other reason than that there will come to be more enemies than Hellfire missiles to shoot at them.

You said exactly what I’ve been feeling. I’m very concerned about the future considering the kind of things going on now, and the rhetoric that leads me to believe , as you do, that we might get a Pres. even more war-like and un-interested in things such as human rights. Very concerning times, indeed.

The reason the US is in Somalia is the usual reason: It’s trying to prop up and defend a “government” it has set up there with the help of the “international community” (meaning, other corrupt regimes that go along with it). As usual, imperialism results in political violence from the locals, which is in turn used to justify further imperialistic violence.

Does this not count as verification? Also note that Shabaab has not claimed any non-combatants were killed. The article also states that the Somali government approved and aided in providing intelligence for the airstrike.

And according the Secretary of State’s official position we are just now restoring diplomatic and consular relations with Somalia. We barely do any business with Somalia. And we don’t have any reciprocal defense treaties with Somalia, so what exactly is in America’s nominal “national interest” that it would pick sides in what amounts to another civil war in a land far away from ours–“humanitarian”, “national building”, “terrorism”. Fair enough, but color me unimpressed with the uneven application of those ideas or terms over the entirety of America’s history as justification for America’s military involvements all over the globe.

“We barely do any business with Somalia. And we don’t have any reciprocal defense treaties with Somalia, so what exactly is in America’s nominal “national interest” that it would pick sides in what amounts to another civil war in a land far away from ours–“humanitarian”, “national building”, “terrorism”.”

Because one party in that conflict Al Shabab has provided assistance and continues to provide assistance to an organization that has killed and is willing to kill as many US citizens as possible with complete disregard to other citizens.

The Intercept is where dumb ass lawyers reunite. Mona the irrational anti American idiot lawyer. Rrheard the emotional dumb ass lawyer who starts talking about his life and his dog when he gets upset.

One cannot expect an idiot to know the answers to these extremely simple questions. An idiot cannot analyze by herself, so she just repeats what others are saying.

“What are we doing in Somalia? When did we declare war there?”

The United States and the African Union is in Somalia at the request of the internationally recognized government of Somalia. The government of Somalia requested military support to stop a terrorist group responsible for massacring Somali citizens and providing assistance to Al Qaeda that has massacred civilians in the US, Kenya, Tanzania, Indonesia, U.K…Some nations request military assistance to fight terrorism and some request law enforcement assistance.

As an idiot you cannot make the difference between a state of war with a nation and military assistance request by a nation. The US is not at war with Afghanistan neither, it is not at war with Iraq, Colombia or the Philippines.

Now as an anti American idiot and an irrational terrorist sympathizer you need to do like Greenwald to improve your pathetic argument. Start by redefining terrorism, and then rejecting the legitimacy of all those governments so you can feel in your narrow minded brain of yours that the US should not target those who are assisting the ones who killed 2000 of its citizens.

That is called a counter offer. You offered 5000. I offered 50,000. That should be the easiest 50,000 you would ever make. Again, if you are serious I will send my name post address and you send me a full contract for review. My 50,000 will be in an US escrow account next week. If you cannot gamble this kind of money, then stay away from the big boys and take a walk with your dog.

U.S. involvement in Somalia and Ethiopia began as a proxy war against the Soviet Union decades ago. This conflict has gotten so perverted for so long I can’t even remember which country belonged to the U.S. and which to the U.S.S.R., the evil twins destroying our planet.

The U.S. is not at war in Somalia. Congress has never declared war on Somalia, nor has it authorized the use of military force there. Morality and ethics to the side for the moment: what legal authority does Obama even possess to bomb this country? I assume we can all agree that Presidents shouldn’t be permitted to just go around killing people they suspect are “bad”: they need some type of legal authority to do the killing.

If Twitter is any indication, you are wrong to assume “we” all agree to that. Apparently, we are “at war with terror” wherever the president says it is found, and may bomb whenever he says we have to kill “terrorists.”

Legal authorization isn’t up to the job of dealing with this kind of “war.” The president has this authority because he has it.

Brilliant piece Glenn. Tragically and immorally I’d argue, the vast majority of Americans simply do not care who its government kills so long as it doesn’t directly impact “their daily way of life” and/or they don’t have to push the little red button themselves.

The vast majority of Americans will simply assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that their proxy/placeholder sitting on the Royal American Throne will always do what is in every American’s best interest to perpetuate the collective perception of “keeping us all safe”.

That so many Americans are unconcerned if not wholly disinterested in even talking about these issues is what is truly frightening to me. What does it say about a nation of people who are so fundamentally indifferent to the lives of others who do not have the good fortune to be born or naturalized citizens of America? What does it say about a nation where some significant minority of its population, who do care, are totally powerless to do anything to change its government’s actions?

I’ve often said over the years around here, and often, that it never ever confused or surprised me how otherwise seemingly decent “modern” “civilized human beings” like the 1930-40s people of Germany could engage in the wholesale slaughter of other human beings. All they needed to do is look in the mirror. When a society becomes so inured to violence, is so economically unstable for long enough, and so indifferent to the lives of those they see as “other”, that’s when bad bad things happen in the world.

Maybe it isn’t fair to put America’s conduct since 1945 on that same level. But between America’s historical sins of extermination of indigenous peoples, wholesale enslavement of another, and the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and their decades of violent acts in South and Central America–that argument isn’t entirely without merit. It may be born of different qualitatively different motivations or in pursuit of slightly different objectives, but the end result is very much the same for the objects of our aggression and the manner in which we think we are entitled to preserve our “way of life”.

Of course I’m leaving out Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and a long long laundry list of nations we’ve engaged in the killing its people in service of our nominal “national interest” but I was just trying to make a point with creating an exhaustive list.

Of course Democrats are outraged by Donald Trump’s barbaric promise to bring back torture because that’s an issue that Democrats can exploit for political advantage. But when a sitting Democratic president kills 150 people on the basis of no evidence and dubious legality, the response is crickets chirping. The Democratic Party operates in a moral vacuum. If torture starts polling well enough I fully expect Hillary Clinton to soften her opposition to it.

“widespread Democratic indifference to the killing of foreigners where there’s no partisan advantage to be had against the GOP from pretending to care”

One major advantage of having a Republican president over Hillary would be the return of liberal pretend care…..to be honest though, I was still enough of a sucker during the Bush admin to think it was not just “pretend” care

I always suspected there was a lot of liberal pretend care back in the Bush years, but I vastly underestimated just how much. All those huge antiwar rallies with their ten of thousands of marchers now look like exercises in concern trolling. President Trump may cause a resurgence in the antiwar movement but I won’t be gullible enough to trust the motives of the people around me next time.

Let me direct your attention toward temporal logic.
Simply stated, which may or may not be at a level you are able to comprehend, once a condition has been set it remains set until it is cleared. All subsequent events are subject to previous set-states.

Perhaps tutoring services in the campus library might sharpen your tool … or are you too busy moving goalposts for students? I don’t have to sit through your class to know the answer … your self-inflation is quite evident, big man.

Check the comments to the last article, where I correct Lin Ming on his/her response to Sulzer. Then come back with some more “temporal logic.” I expect you’ll blame my cleverness, having preempted your retarded (oh sorry, logical) claim that I’m Lin Ming before you made the charge. I’m prescient like that.

…once a condition has been set it remains set until it is cleared.

Are you claiming that your assertion that I am Lin Ming is an established condition? Strange for someone as smart as you claim you are.

Macroman trolled Jenna’s piece earlier and I read Min Ling’s comment the same way Subbob did.

Did you call the police?

…big man

As impressed as I am with your refined understanding of the meaning of the prefix “macro,” as a friendly FYI, I do not use “Macroman” to mean “big man” but as “man that is a macroeconomist.”

Also, as constructive criticism, you might want to try to be less formulaic. All your responses to me seem to follow the same script. “I’m smart. You’re stupid. Rhetorical questions that only the author could laugh at. Big man.” A bit repetitive, you might admit.

In a truly fortuitous coincidence, Lin Ming’s last comment and mine were both posted at exactly 2:36 PM. Here’s where you apply your vaunted “temporal logic” and issue an apology to the big man. Or just keep stomping your foot. Hmmmm, what will nuf said do????

Obama currently has a 51% approval rating. I’d wager this latest drone attack won’t lower it. I’d also wager that any of the three people that could conceivably be our next president wouldn’t have made the same call. If you kill innocent people, there is no backlash. If you fail to kill the will-be-imminently guilty, there will be. So I blame 51% of U.S. citizens. Obama is just a tool.

“Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor
Just an employee of the country’s real masters
Just like the Bushes, Clinton and Obama
Just another talking head telling lies on teleprompters”

‘There has been a $5 million reward on his [the presumed dead ISIS leader] head from the U.S. State Department. Shishani is a former member of an elite Georgian military unit. ‘

Since when has it been considered legitimate practice to put bounties on peoples’ heads? Does Putin have a list of bounties for people the Russian government wants dead? How about the Chinese? Does Angela Merkel have a list of heads she wants collected? Maybe there’s a strong market for international bounty hunters or do we have that market cornered?